Ohlsson 1999

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		25	0.66	84	0.00	30	0.06	29	0.21	38	0.11	41	0.15
Anderszewski 2003		21	0.67	48	0.00	29	0.07	24	0.25	19	0.38	19	0.31
Ashkenazy 1981		5	0.79	5	0.04	3	0.17	4	0.59	5	0.54	3	0.56
Bacha 2000		33	0.64	67	0.00	41	0.06	37	0.16	7	0.51	20	0.29
Badura 1965		66	0.53	68	0.00	49	0.08	46	0.08	32	0.24	42	0.14
Barbosa 1983		61	0.57	35	0.00	19	0.06	28	0.22	12	0.43	18	0.31
Biret 1990		2	0.83	12	0.01	2	0.24	2	0.62	2	0.60	2	0.61
Blet 2003		26	0.65	85	0.00	36	0.04	39	0.14	33	0.17	40	0.15
Block 1995		82	0.38	82	0.00	89	0.02	84	0.02	82	0.03	91	0.02
Blumental 1952		75	0.44	86	0.00	70	0.03	79	0.03	36	0.12	58	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		64	0.56	29	0.00	78	0.03	77	0.03	71	0.03	81	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		50	0.59	42	0.00	65	0.03	64	0.03	75	0.04	77	0.03
Bunin 1987		41	0.61	36	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	58	0.04	74	0.04
Bunin 1987b		38	0.61	59	0.00	56	0.06	48	0.06	56	0.04	61	0.05
Chiu 1999		63	0.56	23	0.01	15	0.09	15	0.39	11	0.47	13	0.43
Cohen 1997		77	0.40	40	0.00	66	0.03	74	0.03	23	0.30	50	0.09
Cortot 1951		45	0.61	65	0.00	60	0.04	59	0.04	40	0.17	53	0.08
Csalog 1996		48	0.60	26	0.01	22	0.06	25	0.25	7	0.52	17	0.36
Czerny 1949		49	0.60	78	0.00	50	0.06	50	0.06	61	0.04	63	0.05
Czerny 1990		17	0.69	43	0.00	32	0.06	22	0.28	50	0.05	44	0.12
Duchoud 2007		1	0.86	1	0.39	1	0.38	1	0.66	2	0.60	1	0.63
Ezaki 2006		7	0.77	7	0.02	12	0.14	6	0.55	11	0.43	9	0.49
Falvay 1989		42	0.61	34	0.00	21	0.07	18	0.32	32	0.17	29	0.23
Farrell 1958		28	0.65	30	0.00	62	0.05	57	0.05	37	0.13	51	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		56	0.59	61	0.00	67	0.03	71	0.03	31	0.27	49	0.09
Fliere 1977		8	0.77	57	0.00	17	0.07	14	0.42	35	0.17	21	0.27
Fou 1978		69	0.52	33	0.00	35	0.05	36	0.17	50	0.06	46	0.10
Francois 1956		44	0.61	44	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.13	54	0.05	54	0.08
Friedman 1923		89	0.18	90	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	58	0.06	87	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.20	83	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	71	0.05	82	0.03
Friedman 1930		84	0.36	75	0.00	73	0.03	67	0.03	59	0.05	70	0.04
Garcia 2007		81	0.38	70	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	63	0.04	80	0.03
Garcia 2007b		85	0.28	80	0.00	86	0.02	89	0.02	41	0.09	75	0.04
Gierzod 1998		6	0.78	16	0.01	9	0.10	11	0.49	3	0.45	12	0.47
Gornostaeva 1994		31	0.64	17	0.01	61	0.04	62	0.04	44	0.09	59	0.06
Groot 1988		57	0.58	52	0.00	64	0.03	76	0.03	60	0.04	84	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		79	0.40	6	0.04	53	0.07	47	0.07	73	0.03	64	0.05
Hatto 1993		36	0.63	77	0.00	11	0.15	13	0.46	6	0.52	11	0.49
Hatto 1997		20	0.68	39	0.00	10	0.10	9	0.51	6	0.54	7	0.52
Horowitz 1949		68	0.52	37	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	65	0.04	78	0.03
Indjic 1988		30	0.65	4	0.04	8	0.15	10	0.50	5	0.56	5	0.53
Kapell 1951		10	0.74	25	0.01	20	0.06	17	0.32	24	0.40	16	0.36
Kissin 1993		54	0.59	20	0.01	23	0.06	26	0.24	30	0.25	26	0.24
Kushner 1989		18	0.69	60	0.00	26	0.05	27	0.23	39	0.18	33	0.20
Luisada 1991		14	0.70	2	0.12	4	0.13	12	0.48	3	0.50	10	0.49
Lushtak 2004		16	0.70	21	0.01	7	0.14	5	0.55	7	0.52	6	0.53
Malcuzynski 1961		13	0.71	55	0.00	52	0.06	53	0.06	76	0.03	66	0.04
Magaloff 1978		22	0.67	9	0.02	46	0.05	55	0.05	71	0.03	65	0.04
Magin 1975		43	0.61	14	0.01	39	0.05	38	0.16	17	0.27	32	0.21
Michalowski 1933		71	0.49	71	0.00	33	0.07	41	0.13	22	0.40	30	0.23
Milkina 1970		23	0.66	88	0.00	40	0.05	34	0.18	40	0.17	37	0.17
Mohovich 1999		34	0.63	32	0.00	51	0.06	52	0.06	76	0.03	73	0.04
Moravec 1969		39	0.61	38	0.00	38	0.05	30	0.20	22	0.35	22	0.26
Morozova 2008		60	0.57	49	0.00	48	0.06	51	0.06	51	0.05	62	0.05
Neighaus 1950		12	0.72	18	0.01	31	0.06	35	0.17	43	0.16	38	0.16
Niedzielski 1931		53	0.59	66	0.00	63	0.03	65	0.03	9	0.39	45	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Osinska 1989		32	0.64	10	0.01	43	0.05	44	0.12	57	0.04	55	0.07
Pachmann 1927		78	0.40	50	0.00	76	0.03	68	0.03	56	0.05	68	0.04
Paderewski 1930		51	0.59	27	0.01	71	0.03	66	0.03	54	0.04	79	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		73	0.45	72	0.00	69	0.03	72	0.03	76	0.03	76	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		52	0.59	69	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.11	32	0.20	39	0.15
Poblocka 1999		4	0.80	28	0.01	6	0.13	7	0.54	5	0.55	4	0.54
Rabcewiczowa 1932		37	0.62	46	0.00	57	0.05	54	0.05	37	0.16	48	0.09
Rachmaninoff 1923		67	0.53	41	0.00	54	0.06	49	0.06	54	0.04	60	0.05
Rangell 2001		15	0.70	31	0.00	34	0.05	31	0.19	16	0.30	27	0.24
Richter 1976		72	0.45	8	0.02	75	0.03	70	0.03	49	0.05	67	0.04
Rosen 1989		24	0.66	19	0.01	44	0.06	40	0.14	34	0.25	35	0.19
Rosenthal 1930		65	0.54	53	0.00	77	0.03	75	0.03	47	0.05	71	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.39	79	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	79	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.38	89	0.00	88	0.03	81	0.03	60	0.04	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		58	0.57	22	0.01	72	0.03	69	0.03	55	0.04	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		74	0.44	76	0.00	81	0.03	73	0.03	70	0.03	83	0.03
Rossi 2007		88	0.19	62	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	61	0.03	88	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		76	0.42	58	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	32	0.29	47	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		62	0.56	3	0.08	14	0.10	33	0.18	26	0.31	28	0.24
Rubinstein 1966		47	0.60	63	0.00	58	0.04	60	0.04	43	0.13	57	0.07
Schilhawsky 1960		29	0.65	73	0.00	28	0.06	21	0.28	28	0.25	23	0.26
Shebanova 2002		11	0.72	11	0.01	13	0.12	8	0.51	5	0.53	8	0.52
Smith 1975		19	0.68	47	0.00	18	0.08	19	0.31	43	0.11	36	0.18
Sokolov 2002		9	0.75	13	0.01	16	0.09	16	0.39	17	0.42	15	0.40
Sztompka 1959		55	0.59	56	0.00	68	0.04	61	0.04	65	0.04	69	0.04
Tomsic 1995		27	0.65	45	0.00	47	0.04	58	0.04	40	0.11	56	0.07
Uninsky 1932		70	0.50	64	0.00	59	0.04	63	0.04	39	0.16	52	0.08
Uninsky 1971		46	0.60	15	0.01	25	0.06	43	0.13	33	0.27	34	0.19
Wasowski 1980		35	0.63	54	0.00	27	0.07	32	0.18	9	0.35	24	0.25
Zak 1937		40	0.61	81	0.00	37	0.05	23	0.26	32	0.23	25	0.24
Zak 1951		59	0.57	51	0.00	24	0.07	20	0.29	42	0.16	31	0.22
Average		3	0.83	24	0.01	5	0.13	3	0.61	29	0.27	14	0.41
Random 1		90	-0.02	74	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	42	0.16	72	0.04
Random 2		91	-0.08	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	54	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		86	0.26	87	0.00	82	0.03	78	0.03	3	0.53	43	0.13

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).