Neighaus 1950

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		26	0.70	48	0.00	25	0.07	25	0.33	14	0.35	28	0.34
Anderszewski 2003		67	0.51	88	0.00	55	0.05	53	0.05	40	0.13	64	0.08
Ashkenazy 1981		27	0.70	70	0.00	23	0.09	30	0.31	19	0.35	31	0.33
Bacha 2000		48	0.62	38	0.00	62	0.04	63	0.04	19	0.37	53	0.12
Badura 1965		69	0.49	78	0.00	72	0.02	83	0.02	47	0.05	87	0.03
Barbosa 1983		62	0.55	53	0.00	37	0.06	42	0.16	21	0.38	38	0.25
Biret 1990		16	0.72	50	0.00	32	0.08	29	0.31	13	0.34	32	0.32
Blet 2003		31	0.67	41	0.00	36	0.06	32	0.27	12	0.41	30	0.33
Block 1995		56	0.58	29	0.00	38	0.06	45	0.10	13	0.33	43	0.18
Blumental 1952		81	0.41	67	0.00	68	0.04	64	0.04	39	0.11	72	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		19	0.72	30	0.00	31	0.08	26	0.33	4	0.54	20	0.42
Brailowsky 1960		53	0.60	80	0.00	71	0.03	76	0.03	74	0.04	83	0.03
Bunin 1987		24	0.71	24	0.00	29	0.06	28	0.32	12	0.45	25	0.38
Bunin 1987b		23	0.71	32	0.00	30	0.08	27	0.32	12	0.45	23	0.38
Chiu 1999		51	0.60	19	0.01	26	0.06	31	0.27	12	0.47	26	0.36
Cohen 1997		86	0.28	59	0.00	86	0.03	81	0.03	70	0.03	89	0.03
Cortot 1951		60	0.56	16	0.01	67	0.03	73	0.03	54	0.06	81	0.04
Csalog 1996		80	0.41	72	0.00	87	0.03	72	0.03	68	0.03	86	0.03
Czerny 1949		40	0.65	11	0.02	28	0.08	23	0.34	16	0.42	24	0.38
Czerny 1990		25	0.70	12	0.01	15	0.12	15	0.46	15	0.38	21	0.42
Duchoud 2007		37	0.66	75	0.00	46	0.06	46	0.06	31	0.27	51	0.13
Ezaki 2006		5	0.80	7	0.04	4	0.13	7	0.54	6	0.54	7	0.54
Falvay 1989		21	0.71	42	0.00	21	0.07	24	0.33	18	0.33	29	0.33
Farrell 1958		12	0.75	6	0.04	5	0.11	18	0.43	1	0.63	10	0.52
Ferenczy 1958		70	0.49	60	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	47	0.05	80	0.04
Fliere 1977		3	0.81	2	0.06	3	0.14	11	0.52	4	0.53	9	0.52
Fou 1978		22	0.71	3	0.05	17	0.11	20	0.42	10	0.49	18	0.45
Francois 1956		18	0.72	9	0.03	8	0.11	14	0.49	5	0.55	11	0.52
Friedman 1923		85	0.30	55	0.00	80	0.03	75	0.03	19	0.40	56	0.11
Friedman 1923b		84	0.31	73	0.00	79	0.04	67	0.04	19	0.40	52	0.13
Friedman 1930		73	0.47	43	0.00	54	0.05	56	0.05	18	0.38	47	0.14
Garcia 2007		79	0.42	71	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	31	0.24	71	0.07
Garcia 2007b		83	0.36	84	0.00	78	0.03	77	0.03	12	0.27	63	0.09
Gierzod 1998		11	0.75	61	0.00	22	0.08	21	0.36	8	0.36	27	0.36
Gornostaeva 1994		8	0.77	18	0.01	6	0.11	6	0.54	4	0.52	8	0.53
Groot 1988		10	0.76	62	0.00	19	0.11	19	0.43	9	0.48	19	0.45
Harasiewicz 1955		54	0.60	28	0.00	11	0.09	13	0.49	10	0.44	17	0.46
Hatto 1993		82	0.41	85	0.00	75	0.03	78	0.03	41	0.09	76	0.05
Hatto 1997		71	0.48	64	0.00	60	0.04	62	0.04	40	0.11	70	0.07
Horowitz 1949		33	0.67	39	0.00	42	0.06	39	0.17	10	0.42	37	0.27
Indjic 1988		78	0.42	49	0.00	69	0.03	82	0.03	48	0.05	79	0.04
Kapell 1951		41	0.63	37	0.00	59	0.04	59	0.04	38	0.20	61	0.09
Kissin 1993		32	0.67	35	0.00	35	0.05	38	0.17	24	0.31	40	0.23
Kushner 1989		28	0.68	81	0.00	27	0.06	34	0.22	22	0.32	36	0.27
Luisada 1991		47	0.63	22	0.01	33	0.06	44	0.13	22	0.33	41	0.21
Lushtak 2004		15	0.74	8	0.03	14	0.13	9	0.52	8	0.51	12	0.51
Malcuzynski 1961		2	0.85	13	0.01	2	0.19	2	0.65	2	0.62	2	0.63
Magaloff 1978		9	0.77	15	0.01	20	0.13	12	0.49	5	0.47	14	0.48
Magin 1975		59	0.57	40	0.00	50	0.05	49	0.05	29	0.21	58	0.10
Michalowski 1933		77	0.44	33	0.00	47	0.05	55	0.05	33	0.29	55	0.12
Milkina 1970		36	0.66	86	0.00	52	0.05	52	0.05	36	0.20	59	0.10
Mohovich 1999		6	0.80	27	0.00	7	0.12	5	0.56	5	0.56	6	0.56
Moravec 1969		63	0.54	68	0.00	76	0.04	66	0.04	44	0.08	73	0.06
Morozova 2008		52	0.60	20	0.01	34	0.05	33	0.26	10	0.31	34	0.28
Neighaus 1950		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Niedzielski 1931		75	0.47	31	0.00	85	0.04	61	0.04	50	0.05	78	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		17	0.72	17	0.01	45	0.08	43	0.16	35	0.17	44	0.16
Osinska 1989		42	0.63	26	0.00	41	0.06	35	0.22	19	0.33	35	0.27
Pachmann 1927		58	0.57	65	0.00	53	0.04	57	0.04	20	0.42	49	0.13
Paderewski 1930		57	0.58	52	0.00	66	0.03	69	0.03	28	0.18	68	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		39	0.65	5	0.04	10	0.10	16	0.46	4	0.55	13	0.50
Pierdomenico 2008		43	0.63	14	0.01	40	0.06	37	0.18	16	0.33	39	0.24
Poblocka 1999		34	0.66	54	0.00	44	0.08	41	0.17	43	0.12	45	0.14
Rabcewiczowa 1932		29	0.67	45	0.00	39	0.05	36	0.18	7	0.48	33	0.29
Rachmaninoff 1923		49	0.61	76	0.00	24	0.09	22	0.35	6	0.44	22	0.39
Rangell 2001		38	0.66	66	0.00	58	0.05	48	0.05	41	0.14	66	0.08
Richter 1976		76	0.44	56	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	56	0.04	85	0.03
Rosen 1989		4	0.80	23	0.00	9	0.10	3	0.57	1	0.68	3	0.62
Rosenthal 1930		61	0.56	89	0.00	64	0.03	74	0.03	32	0.25	62	0.09
Rosenthal 1931		74	0.47	74	0.00	73	0.02	86	0.02	35	0.19	75	0.06
Rosenthal 1931b		68	0.50	90	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	26	0.26	60	0.10
Rosenthal 1931c		45	0.63	57	0.00	57	0.06	47	0.06	20	0.35	48	0.14
Rosenthal 1931d		65	0.53	91	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	29	0.19	67	0.08
Rossi 2007		87	0.24	58	0.00	81	0.03	70	0.03	35	0.12	74	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		88	0.24	87	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	56	0.05	84	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		66	0.53	77	0.00	77	0.03	71	0.03	46	0.08	77	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		55	0.59	36	0.00	70	0.02	85	0.02	31	0.22	69	0.07
Schilhawsky 1960		44	0.63	63	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.17	33	0.22	42	0.19
Shebanova 2002		46	0.63	79	0.00	61	0.04	58	0.04	36	0.17	65	0.08
Smith 1975		20	0.72	46	0.00	13	0.14	8	0.52	5	0.42	15	0.47
Sokolov 2002		30	0.67	44	0.00	48	0.05	51	0.05	40	0.20	57	0.10
Sztompka 1959		35	0.66	47	0.00	51	0.04	60	0.04	27	0.35	54	0.12
Tomsic 1995		7	0.78	34	0.00	18	0.11	17	0.45	11	0.49	16	0.47
Uninsky 1932		64	0.54	69	0.00	56	0.05	50	0.05	30	0.32	50	0.13
Uninsky 1971		50	0.60	25	0.00	49	0.05	54	0.05	26	0.37	46	0.14
Wasowski 1980		72	0.48	21	0.01	63	0.03	68	0.03	58	0.04	82	0.03
Zak 1937		13	0.74	10	0.02	16	0.11	10	0.52	2	0.61	5	0.56
Zak 1951		14	0.74	4	0.05	12	0.11	4	0.57	4	0.61	4	0.59
Average		1	0.86	1	0.47	1	0.46	1	0.75	2	0.60	1	0.67
Random 1		90	-0.04	51	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	48	0.05	90	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.15	82	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		89	0.09	83	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	60	0.04	88	0.03

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).