Ezaki 2006

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		8	0.82	2	0.22	2	0.26	2	0.61	1	0.62	2	0.61
Anderszewski 2003		60	0.60	64	0.00	52	0.04	60	0.04	24	0.30	57	0.11
Ashkenazy 1981		33	0.70	66	0.00	33	0.05	32	0.18	23	0.33	36	0.24
Bacha 2000		71	0.51	71	0.00	75	0.02	84	0.02	40	0.12	71	0.05
Badura 1965		45	0.66	43	0.00	35	0.05	30	0.18	4	0.59	25	0.33
Barbosa 1983		53	0.63	67	0.00	32	0.06	34	0.18	11	0.43	30	0.28
Biret 1990		29	0.71	27	0.00	44	0.04	43	0.09	15	0.33	43	0.17
Blet 2003		17	0.76	69	0.00	22	0.09	20	0.32	7	0.51	20	0.40
Block 1995		65	0.54	30	0.00	76	0.03	75	0.03	52	0.04	84	0.03
Blumental 1952		82	0.40	58	0.00	71	0.03	73	0.03	37	0.12	70	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		50	0.64	36	0.00	65	0.03	69	0.03	32	0.19	64	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		52	0.63	10	0.02	69	0.03	81	0.03	43	0.10	72	0.05
Bunin 1987		15	0.76	47	0.00	15	0.08	16	0.38	7	0.49	17	0.43
Bunin 1987b		14	0.76	16	0.01	14	0.08	17	0.38	7	0.49	15	0.43
Chiu 1999		64	0.55	70	0.00	63	0.04	62	0.04	36	0.14	66	0.07
Cohen 1997		84	0.24	25	0.00	87	0.03	77	0.03	58	0.04	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		59	0.61	53	0.00	64	0.03	72	0.03	31	0.26	63	0.09
Csalog 1996		81	0.41	33	0.00	85	0.03	74	0.03	51	0.06	78	0.04
Czerny 1949		19	0.75	44	0.00	20	0.09	13	0.41	13	0.47	14	0.44
Czerny 1990		6	0.83	80	0.00	7	0.13	8	0.51	7	0.48	9	0.49
Duchoud 2007		25	0.74	22	0.00	13	0.08	15	0.38	7	0.49	16	0.43
Ezaki 2006		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Falvay 1989		24	0.74	12	0.01	25	0.07	25	0.27	20	0.31	28	0.29
Farrell 1958		62	0.56	48	0.00	74	0.02	83	0.02	72	0.03	89	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		40	0.68	32	0.00	59	0.06	46	0.06	11	0.44	45	0.16
Fliere 1977		7	0.83	19	0.01	11	0.18	10	0.46	8	0.44	11	0.45
Fou 1978		43	0.67	6	0.03	24	0.08	29	0.21	29	0.33	33	0.26
Francois 1956		21	0.75	28	0.00	8	0.12	12	0.43	9	0.48	13	0.45
Friedman 1923		87	0.22	85	0.00	83	0.03	71	0.03	24	0.34	60	0.10
Friedman 1923b		86	0.23	86	0.00	82	0.02	82	0.02	23	0.33	65	0.08
Friedman 1930		77	0.46	76	0.00	58	0.06	48	0.06	24	0.35	50	0.14
Garcia 2007		83	0.38	51	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	58	0.04	83	0.03
Garcia 2007b		85	0.24	49	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	59	0.04	87	0.03
Gierzod 1998		35	0.69	41	0.00	49	0.04	58	0.04	24	0.22	62	0.09
Gornostaeva 1994		10	0.80	9	0.02	12	0.13	14	0.40	5	0.51	12	0.45
Groot 1988		16	0.76	26	0.00	23	0.09	23	0.28	21	0.36	27	0.32
Harasiewicz 1955		46	0.66	68	0.00	17	0.09	21	0.30	12	0.40	22	0.35
Hatto 1993		80	0.41	7	0.03	43	0.06	40	0.11	19	0.33	42	0.19
Hatto 1997		72	0.50	5	0.04	28	0.07	36	0.17	10	0.45	31	0.28
Horowitz 1949		67	0.54	77	0.00	72	0.03	78	0.03	35	0.17	67	0.07
Indjic 1988		78	0.43	29	0.00	42	0.04	39	0.12	15	0.40	37	0.22
Kapell 1951		31	0.71	31	0.00	48	0.05	51	0.05	25	0.38	49	0.14
Kissin 1993		18	0.76	59	0.00	29	0.07	24	0.28	12	0.48	21	0.37
Kushner 1989		23	0.74	78	0.00	34	0.05	33	0.18	14	0.37	34	0.26
Luisada 1991		39	0.69	72	0.00	53	0.05	54	0.05	26	0.27	52	0.12
Lushtak 2004		12	0.78	14	0.01	10	0.17	4	0.56	2	0.60	5	0.58
Malcuzynski 1961		4	0.84	4	0.05	5	0.12	3	0.59	4	0.61	3	0.60
Magaloff 1978		22	0.75	46	0.00	30	0.06	27	0.24	26	0.33	29	0.28
Magin 1975		54	0.63	87	0.00	51	0.04	63	0.04	24	0.23	58	0.10
Michalowski 1933		76	0.47	81	0.00	62	0.04	57	0.04	35	0.28	56	0.11
Milkina 1970		51	0.64	56	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	58	0.05	76	0.04
Mohovich 1999		3	0.84	3	0.09	3	0.14	7	0.54	2	0.62	6	0.58
Moravec 1969		63	0.55	62	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	73	0.03	80	0.03
Morozova 2008		28	0.72	15	0.01	16	0.09	22	0.30	6	0.38	24	0.34
Neighaus 1950		9	0.80	8	0.02	9	0.14	6	0.54	7	0.54	7	0.54
Niedzielski 1931		79	0.41	90	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	58	0.04	81	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		13	0.77	13	0.01	21	0.08	11	0.43	6	0.55	8	0.49
Osinska 1989		30	0.71	21	0.00	50	0.04	59	0.04	18	0.34	53	0.12
Pachmann 1927		75	0.47	88	0.00	81	0.05	53	0.05	50	0.05	73	0.05
Paderewski 1930		57	0.62	73	0.00	70	0.03	76	0.03	50	0.04	82	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		32	0.71	40	0.00	36	0.05	37	0.13	22	0.34	39	0.21
Pierdomenico 2008		37	0.69	60	0.00	56	0.04	55	0.04	26	0.28	54	0.11
Poblocka 1999		20	0.75	55	0.00	31	0.06	28	0.24	11	0.48	23	0.34
Rabcewiczowa 1932		38	0.69	35	0.00	57	0.06	49	0.06	20	0.36	48	0.15
Rachmaninoff 1923		49	0.64	37	0.00	38	0.07	35	0.17	16	0.35	35	0.24
Rangell 2001		42	0.67	17	0.01	54	0.05	52	0.05	9	0.39	51	0.14
Richter 1976		61	0.60	91	0.00	67	0.04	61	0.04	62	0.04	77	0.04
Rosen 1989		26	0.73	11	0.01	19	0.08	19	0.32	7	0.54	18	0.42
Rosenthal 1930		47	0.65	61	0.00	55	0.06	47	0.06	15	0.45	47	0.16
Rosenthal 1931		68	0.53	45	0.00	61	0.04	64	0.04	32	0.24	59	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		73	0.47	42	0.00	79	0.02	85	0.02	42	0.10	79	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		44	0.67	74	0.00	40	0.05	42	0.09	11	0.47	40	0.21
Rosenthal 1931d		70	0.51	38	0.00	80	0.03	68	0.03	63	0.04	86	0.03
Rossi 2007		74	0.47	82	0.00	60	0.03	67	0.03	11	0.28	61	0.09
Rubinstein 1939		88	0.20	79	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	80	0.03	88	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		66	0.54	34	0.00	41	0.04	44	0.09	53	0.06	69	0.07
Rubinstein 1966		56	0.62	18	0.01	27	0.06	38	0.12	26	0.39	38	0.22
Schilhawsky 1960		34	0.69	57	0.00	26	0.06	26	0.25	10	0.42	26	0.32
Shebanova 2002		55	0.63	50	0.00	68	0.03	70	0.03	45	0.10	74	0.05
Smith 1975		2	0.84	23	0.00	4	0.09	9	0.51	4	0.43	10	0.47
Sokolov 2002		11	0.79	20	0.01	18	0.12	18	0.35	7	0.46	19	0.40
Sztompka 1959		27	0.72	75	0.00	39	0.04	41	0.10	26	0.35	41	0.19
Tomsic 1995		5	0.84	39	0.00	6	0.14	5	0.55	2	0.62	4	0.58
Uninsky 1932		58	0.62	54	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	26	0.34	46	0.16
Uninsky 1971		36	0.69	24	0.00	46	0.06	50	0.06	18	0.42	44	0.16
Wasowski 1980		69	0.51	65	0.00	73	0.04	65	0.04	71	0.04	75	0.04
Zak 1937		48	0.65	89	0.00	47	0.04	56	0.04	20	0.32	55	0.11
Zak 1951		41	0.68	63	0.00	37	0.06	31	0.18	15	0.41	32	0.27
Average		1	0.89	1	0.32	1	0.31	1	0.70	7	0.54	1	0.61
Random 1		90	-0.12	52	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	65	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.17	83	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	85	0.02	90	0.02
Random 3		89	0.07	84	0.00	88	0.02	86	0.02	27	0.22	68	0.07

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).