Duchoud 2007

Performance		0-Rank	0-Score	1-Rank	1-Score	2-Rank	2-Score	3-Rank	3-Score	3R-Rank	3R-Score	4-Rank	4-Score	NED
Afanassiev 2001		14	0.70	53	0.00	21	0.09	21	0.41	17	0.34	22	0.37
Anderszewski 2003		15	0.70	14	0.01	13	0.08	13	0.45	9	0.52	9	0.48
Ashkenazy 1981		11	0.72	4	0.05	5	0.14	4	0.52	6	0.51	3	0.51
Bacha 2000		59	0.54	68	0.00	73	0.04	55	0.04	50	0.05	63	0.04
Badura 1965		56	0.55	40	0.00	31	0.07	33	0.25	10	0.49	25	0.35
Barbosa 1983		28	0.64	3	0.06	18	0.15	8	0.48	4	0.52	5	0.50
Biret 1990		4	0.79	19	0.01	6	0.14	3	0.52	3	0.59	2	0.55
Blet 2003		8	0.73	49	0.00	16	0.12	5	0.51	8	0.49	6	0.50
Block 1995		76	0.42	75	0.00	83	0.02	85	0.02	79	0.03	88	0.02
Blumental 1952		81	0.37	63	0.00	66	0.04	63	0.04	47	0.05	70	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		71	0.44	42	0.00	81	0.03	78	0.03	77	0.03	82	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		69	0.46	90	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	76	0.04	74	0.03
Bunin 1987		20	0.67	50	0.00	28	0.10	24	0.40	23	0.36	21	0.38
Bunin 1987b		19	0.67	86	0.00	27	0.06	22	0.41	23	0.36	20	0.38
Chiu 1999		68	0.49	10	0.02	34	0.08	35	0.24	18	0.37	30	0.30
Cohen 1997		86	0.28	20	0.01	77	0.02	80	0.02	57	0.04	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		18	0.67	55	0.00	30	0.10	26	0.37	20	0.38	23	0.37
Csalog 1996		66	0.50	30	0.00	63	0.04	68	0.04	41	0.19	50	0.09
Czerny 1949		43	0.60	24	0.00	41	0.07	37	0.19	43	0.10	40	0.14
Czerny 1990		12	0.71	9	0.02	20	0.10	14	0.44	23	0.27	26	0.34
Duchoud 2007		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ezaki 2006		7	0.74	36	0.00	17	0.16	7	0.49	15	0.38	16	0.43
Falvay 1989		64	0.52	45	0.00	61	0.03	71	0.03	56	0.04	75	0.03
Farrell 1958		36	0.62	54	0.00	68	0.04	57	0.04	51	0.04	66	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		35	0.62	88	0.00	29	0.09	38	0.19	17	0.40	34	0.28
Fliere 1977		9	0.73	6	0.04	22	0.09	23	0.40	31	0.19	33	0.28
Fou 1978		74	0.42	27	0.00	59	0.03	69	0.03	71	0.04	77	0.03
Francois 1956		32	0.63	80	0.00	44	0.05	42	0.12	52	0.05	54	0.08
Friedman 1923		84	0.33	32	0.00	65	0.04	58	0.04	18	0.41	44	0.13
Friedman 1923b		82	0.34	26	0.00	64	0.04	65	0.04	18	0.41	42	0.13
Friedman 1930		72	0.44	65	0.00	39	0.07	40	0.18	21	0.37	35	0.26
Garcia 2007		70	0.45	47	0.00	51	0.04	62	0.04	18	0.34	45	0.12
Garcia 2007b		87	0.22	84	0.00	79	0.02	82	0.02	55	0.04	85	0.03
Gierzod 1998		23	0.66	69	0.00	35	0.06	36	0.21	41	0.13	39	0.17
Gornostaeva 1994		31	0.63	39	0.00	47	0.05	47	0.05	55	0.04	72	0.04
Groot 1988		47	0.59	59	0.00	74	0.04	53	0.04	72	0.03	84	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		73	0.42	56	0.00	46	0.06	46	0.06	50	0.05	62	0.05
Hatto 1993		40	0.61	60	0.00	8	0.14	19	0.42	7	0.52	12	0.47
Hatto 1997		21	0.67	5	0.04	2	0.14	10	0.46	7	0.52	7	0.49
Horowitz 1949		75	0.42	82	0.00	78	0.02	79	0.02	61	0.04	78	0.03
Indjic 1988		30	0.63	17	0.01	3	0.14	17	0.43	7	0.52	11	0.47
Kapell 1951		5	0.78	61	0.00	12	0.09	16	0.44	15	0.44	14	0.44
Kissin 1993		67	0.49	22	0.01	56	0.04	67	0.04	45	0.13	56	0.07
Kushner 1989		10	0.72	15	0.01	33	0.08	28	0.31	21	0.33	28	0.32
Luisada 1991		33	0.63	33	0.00	40	0.06	39	0.18	23	0.32	36	0.24
Lushtak 2004		26	0.65	34	0.00	9	0.16	9	0.47	15	0.44	13	0.45
Malcuzynski 1961		22	0.67	31	0.00	48	0.05	51	0.05	50	0.05	59	0.05
Magaloff 1978		45	0.60	28	0.00	54	0.04	59	0.04	47	0.05	65	0.04
Magin 1975		52	0.57	48	0.00	50	0.05	50	0.05	31	0.21	48	0.10
Michalowski 1933		63	0.53	29	0.00	14	0.09	20	0.42	17	0.42	17	0.42
Milkina 1970		44	0.60	66	0.00	60	0.03	74	0.03	52	0.05	68	0.04
Mohovich 1999		46	0.60	43	0.00	55	0.04	56	0.04	61	0.04	71	0.04
Moravec 1969		42	0.60	70	0.00	57	0.04	61	0.04	34	0.18	52	0.08
Morozova 2008		50	0.59	78	0.00	25	0.06	29	0.29	31	0.15	37	0.21
Neighaus 1950		24	0.66	37	0.00	37	0.06	31	0.27	46	0.06	43	0.13
Niedzielski 1931		57	0.55	44	0.00	72	0.03	70	0.03	26	0.23	53	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		1	0.86	1	0.42	1	0.42	2	0.60	1	0.66	1	0.63
Osinska 1989		48	0.59	71	0.00	52	0.04	66	0.04	62	0.04	64	0.04
Pachmann 1927		85	0.31	35	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	74	0.03	87	0.02
Paderewski 1930		55	0.55	91	0.00	71	0.03	73	0.03	64	0.03	80	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		60	0.53	79	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.10	44	0.09	49	0.09
Pierdomenico 2008		62	0.53	46	0.00	70	0.03	76	0.03	53	0.04	76	0.03
Poblocka 1999		6	0.75	16	0.01	10	0.09	11	0.46	8	0.50	8	0.48
Rabcewiczowa 1932		34	0.62	83	0.00	38	0.07	34	0.25	19	0.37	31	0.30
Rachmaninoff 1923		29	0.64	12	0.01	26	0.08	30	0.29	17	0.34	29	0.31
Rangell 2001		27	0.64	8	0.03	53	0.04	64	0.04	18	0.29	47	0.11
Richter 1976		65	0.51	76	0.00	62	0.03	77	0.03	79	0.03	79	0.03
Rosen 1989		49	0.59	7	0.04	36	0.05	45	0.10	39	0.20	41	0.14
Rosenthal 1930		41	0.60	73	0.00	67	0.05	49	0.05	39	0.17	51	0.09
Rosenthal 1931		77	0.41	62	0.00	85	0.02	81	0.02	59	0.04	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.38	64	0.00	86	0.02	83	0.02	70	0.03	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		54	0.56	52	0.00	69	0.04	60	0.04	58	0.04	73	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		78	0.40	58	0.00	87	0.02	84	0.02	81	0.02	89	0.02
Rossi 2007		88	0.20	89	0.00	75	0.03	72	0.03	41	0.08	58	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.34	51	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	62	0.04	86	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		79	0.39	41	0.00	88	0.02	86	0.02	71	0.03	91	0.02
Rubinstein 1966		53	0.57	21	0.01	76	0.04	54	0.04	70	0.04	69	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		16	0.69	67	0.00	19	0.13	18	0.43	16	0.38	19	0.40
Shebanova 2002		51	0.58	13	0.01	42	0.05	41	0.13	29	0.28	38	0.19
Smith 1975		17	0.68	38	0.00	15	0.09	15	0.44	17	0.28	24	0.35
Sokolov 2002		2	0.82	18	0.01	7	0.14	6	0.50	5	0.51	4	0.50
Sztompka 1959		25	0.66	77	0.00	32	0.08	27	0.33	30	0.33	27	0.33
Tomsic 1995		38	0.61	87	0.00	43	0.04	43	0.11	49	0.05	55	0.07
Uninsky 1932		37	0.62	74	0.00	23	0.08	25	0.38	14	0.44	18	0.41
Uninsky 1971		13	0.71	11	0.02	11	0.11	12	0.45	14	0.44	15	0.44
Wasowski 1980		39	0.61	25	0.00	24	0.07	32	0.25	16	0.31	32	0.28
Zak 1937		58	0.55	85	0.00	58	0.04	52	0.04	59	0.05	67	0.04
Zak 1951		61	0.53	23	0.00	49	0.05	48	0.05	46	0.06	60	0.05
Average		3	0.82	2	0.10	4	0.13	1	0.64	14	0.36	10	0.48
Random 1		90	0.02	57	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	15	0.37	57	0.06
Random 2		91	0.00	72	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	20	0.30	61	0.05
Random 3		89	0.19	81	0.00	80	0.03	75	0.03	9	0.46	46	0.12

Column descriptions

• Performance:
• 0-Rank/0-Score: 0-Score is equivalent to Pearson correlation of the entire data sequence between the reference performance and a test performance. 0-Rank is the sorting order of the 0-scores (highest score has a rank of 1).
• 1-Rank/1-Score: 1-Score is the area fraction covered by a particular performance in the scape plot (see image above). These values should not be taken literally, since they are sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 2-Rank/2-Score: 2-Score values are equivalent to 1-Score values with all higher-ranking performances removed before the calculation of the area of coverage in the scape is calculated. Improvment over the 1-Rank scores, but still somewhat sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3-Rank/3-Score: Similar to 2-Rank calculations. The bottom 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are kept constant as a noise floor for the similarity measurement. Then one-by-one the top 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are superimposed with the noise-floor performances, and a 3-score is measured as the area covered in the scape. This measure is not sentisive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3R-Rank/3R-Score: Reverse 3-rank/3-scores. 3-rankings and scores are not symmetric (A->B values are different from B->A values). So this column represents similarity measures in the opposite direction.
• 4-Rank/4-Score: The geometric mean between 3-scores and 3R-scores. This column gives the best overall similarity ranking between the various performances (see color codes below).
• NED: Noise Equivalient Distance (not yet implemented)

Color codes for 3-rank listings:

• red = strongly similar performance to target
• orange = moderately similar performance
• yellow = weakly similar performance
• green = marginally similar/dissimilar performance
• white = dissimilar to target
• blue = false positive (has high 3-rank score but low 3R-rank score)

3-rank/scores are not symmetric, so the 3R-rank/score columns give the 3-rank/scores going in the opposite direction. More matches in the 3-rank column than in the 3R-rank column indicates an individualistic performance, while more matches in the 3R-rank column indicates a mainstream performance.

If a 3-rank and a 3R-rank are both marked as similar to each other, then there is a possible direct relation between the performances. If one is similar to the other but not in the reverse direction, then the similarity is more likely to be by chance (performers randomly chose a similar interpretation).