Badura 1965

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		20	0.32	21	0.01	31	0.08	27	0.43	49	0.07	28	0.17
Anderszewski 2003		9	0.36	12	0.01	3	0.13	5	0.65	7	0.65	3	0.65
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.41	16	0.01	6	0.16	7	0.64	42	0.22	12	0.38
Bacha 2000		25	0.30	42	0.00	16	0.09	16	0.51	21	0.46	9	0.48
Badura 1965		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Barbosa 1983		70	0.17	61	0.00	73	0.04	64	0.04	78	0.03	76	0.03
Biret 1990		87	0.03	83	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	62	0.04	83	0.03
Blet 2003		64	0.20	69	0.00	81	0.03	73	0.03	77	0.03	77	0.03
Block 1995		16	0.34	9	0.02	19	0.10	20	0.49	50	0.06	29	0.17
Blumental 1952		7	0.36	6	0.03	8	0.14	8	0.61	14	0.56	6	0.58
Boshniakovich 1969		42	0.25	55	0.00	30	0.07	31	0.38	55	0.06	33	0.15
Brailowsky 1960		11	0.35	5	0.03	7	0.13	4	0.68	7	0.66	2	0.67
Bunin 1987		65	0.20	75	0.00	68	0.03	69	0.03	75	0.04	82	0.03
Bunin 1987b		61	0.20	76	0.00	67	0.03	72	0.03	71	0.04	75	0.03
Chiu 1999		41	0.26	81	0.00	53	0.04	58	0.04	70	0.05	54	0.04
Cohen 1997		46	0.24	72	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.13	38	0.27	25	0.19
Cortot 1951		50	0.22	65	0.00	55	0.04	60	0.04	52	0.05	69	0.04
Csalog 1996		52	0.22	36	0.00	52	0.04	57	0.04	65	0.05	62	0.04
Czerny 1949		85	0.10	84	0.00	84	0.03	76	0.03	46	0.08	52	0.05
Czerny 1990		63	0.20	44	0.00	59	0.03	70	0.03	62	0.05	66	0.04
Duchoud 2007		57	0.21	51	0.00	42	0.05	41	0.14	59	0.05	46	0.08
Ezaki 2006		19	0.33	4	0.06	11	0.10	17	0.49	28	0.45	10	0.47
Falvay 1989		24	0.30	22	0.01	14	0.09	21	0.48	36	0.21	16	0.32
Farrell 1958		48	0.22	64	0.00	50	0.05	48	0.05	38	0.24	41	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		54	0.22	38	0.00	38	0.08	39	0.19	29	0.61	14	0.34
Fliere 1977		17	0.34	49	0.00	33	0.10	28	0.41	82	0.04	36	0.13
Fou 1978		2	0.43	1	0.40	1	0.39	1	0.77	8	0.62	1	0.69
Francois 1956		84	0.10	47	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.02	91	0.02
Friedman 1923		13	0.35	29	0.00	25	0.07	19	0.49	47	0.10	24	0.22
Friedman 1923b		14	0.34	31	0.00	26	0.09	18	0.49	49	0.10	22	0.22
Friedman 1930		5	0.37	7	0.02	24	0.09	24	0.46	52	0.07	26	0.18
Garcia 2007		72	0.16	77	0.00	61	0.03	78	0.03	73	0.04	79	0.03
Garcia 2007b		78	0.15	43	0.00	72	0.03	71	0.03	67	0.04	86	0.03
Gierzod 1998		6	0.36	14	0.01	5	0.17	3	0.69	17	0.62	4	0.65
Gornostaeva 1994		75	0.16	62	0.00	79	0.04	54	0.04	65	0.04	65	0.04
Groot 1988		37	0.26	15	0.01	51	0.04	55	0.04	73	0.04	67	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		45	0.24	57	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.03	85	0.03
Hatto 1993		44	0.24	85	0.00	60	0.04	56	0.04	71	0.05	68	0.04
Hatto 1997		66	0.19	74	0.00	69	0.04	67	0.04	70	0.04	63	0.04
Horowitz 1949		73	0.16	66	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	72	0.04	58	0.04
Indjic 1988		55	0.21	86	0.00	66	0.03	75	0.03	69	0.05	61	0.04
Kapell 1951		76	0.16	70	0.00	64	0.03	81	0.03	62	0.06	57	0.04
Kissin 1993		34	0.27	37	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.12	49	0.08	43	0.10
Kushner 1989		10	0.36	26	0.00	4	0.16	6	0.65	25	0.44	8	0.53
Luisada 1991		39	0.26	35	0.00	58	0.05	50	0.05	79	0.04	53	0.04
Lushtak 2004		62	0.20	50	0.00	27	0.07	35	0.28	30	0.20	19	0.24
Malcuzynski 1961		8	0.36	10	0.02	15	0.10	11	0.56	39	0.19	15	0.33
Magaloff 1978		68	0.18	23	0.00	57	0.05	53	0.05	68	0.04	55	0.04
Magin 1975		59	0.21	41	0.00	74	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.04	73	0.03
Michalowski 1933		47	0.23	63	0.00	56	0.04	59	0.04	61	0.06	51	0.05
Milkina 1970		71	0.17	52	0.00	78	0.04	63	0.04	76	0.03	74	0.03
Mohovich 1999		67	0.18	87	0.00	70	0.03	68	0.03	76	0.03	81	0.03
Moravec 1969		26	0.29	34	0.00	35	0.08	34	0.29	65	0.04	40	0.11
Morozova 2008		15	0.34	27	0.00	23	0.08	22	0.48	56	0.05	31	0.15
Neighaus 1950		81	0.12	88	0.00	82	0.04	61	0.04	85	0.02	84	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		51	0.22	11	0.02	21	0.09	37	0.25	69	0.04	42	0.10
Ohlsson 1999		32	0.27	89	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.19	72	0.04	44	0.09
Osinska 1989		86	0.09	78	0.00	83	0.03	74	0.03	85	0.02	87	0.02
Pachmann 1927		23	0.31	18	0.01	20	0.11	15	0.52	41	0.24	13	0.35
Paderewski 1930		56	0.21	67	0.00	63	0.03	79	0.03	69	0.05	60	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		28	0.29	79	0.00	36	0.08	36	0.27	46	0.06	37	0.13
Pierdomenico 2008		77	0.15	71	0.00	76	0.03	83	0.03	75	0.03	72	0.03
Poblocka 1999		31	0.28	68	0.00	34	0.12	32	0.37	76	0.04	39	0.12
Rabcewiczowa 1932		82	0.11	39	0.00	71	0.04	62	0.04	55	0.06	49	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		43	0.25	30	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	71	0.03	48	0.05
Rangell 2001		33	0.27	33	0.00	32	0.08	30	0.39	43	0.12	23	0.22
Richter 1976		38	0.26	60	0.00	49	0.05	51	0.05	79	0.04	59	0.04
Rosen 1989		29	0.29	58	0.00	28	0.07	25	0.44	59	0.04	38	0.13
Rosenthal 1930		22	0.31	20	0.01	29	0.07	26	0.44	26	0.43	11	0.43
Rosenthal 1931		27	0.29	13	0.01	10	0.15	9	0.59	16	0.63	5	0.61
Rosenthal 1931b		36	0.26	17	0.01	13	0.12	14	0.53	20	0.60	7	0.56
Rosenthal 1931c		74	0.16	53	0.00	62	0.04	66	0.04	58	0.04	70	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		79	0.15	54	0.00	40	0.08	40	0.17	33	0.37	18	0.25
Rossi 2007		91	-0.08	90	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	82	0.03	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		40	0.26	45	0.00	54	0.05	49	0.05	63	0.04	56	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		83	0.11	91	0.00	75	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.02	90	0.02
Rubinstein 1966		12	0.35	19	0.01	18	0.13	12	0.55	78	0.04	30	0.15
Schilhawsky 1960		58	0.21	25	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.11	40	0.18	35	0.14
Shebanova 2002		18	0.33	59	0.00	22	0.08	23	0.47	66	0.06	27	0.17
Smith 1975		69	0.17	32	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	69	0.04	71	0.03
Sokolov 2002		80	0.12	82	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	88	0.01	88	0.02
Sztompka 1959		30	0.28	80	0.00	37	0.09	33	0.31	53	0.06	34	0.14
Tomsic 1995		35	0.26	3	0.07	12	0.12	29	0.41	36	0.16	17	0.26
Uninsky 1932		4	0.38	8	0.02	9	0.16	10	0.58	47	0.08	21	0.22
Uninsky 1971		21	0.32	28	0.00	17	0.11	13	0.54	46	0.09	20	0.22
Wasowski 1980		53	0.22	40	0.00	41	0.05	44	0.12	67	0.05	45	0.08
Zak 1937		60	0.21	24	0.00	47	0.06	47	0.06	66	0.05	50	0.05
Zak 1951		49	0.22	73	0.00	48	0.05	52	0.05	47	0.07	47	0.06
Average		1	0.45	2	0.15	2	0.34	2	0.77	81	0.03	32	0.15
Random 1		89	-0.01	56	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	52	0.04	80	0.03
Random 2		88	-0.01	48	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	49	0.06	78	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.08	46	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	37	0.15	64	0.04

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).