Brailowsky 1960

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		11	0.35	28	0.00	22	0.11	17	0.54	38	0.26	23	0.37
Anderszewski 2003		8	0.36	6	0.04	9	0.13	9	0.62	8	0.62	8	0.62
Ashkenazy 1981		72	0.13	20	0.00	67	0.06	59	0.06	77	0.04	66	0.05
Bacha 2000		17	0.34	14	0.01	10	0.12	8	0.63	14	0.54	10	0.58
Badura 1965		9	0.35	11	0.01	8	0.14	7	0.66	4	0.68	4	0.67
Barbosa 1983		61	0.19	75	0.00	66	0.05	65	0.05	72	0.04	70	0.04
Biret 1990		75	0.12	72	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	75	0.04	80	0.03
Blet 2003		71	0.14	51	0.00	70	0.04	75	0.04	73	0.03	77	0.03
Block 1995		24	0.32	69	0.00	32	0.10	28	0.43	73	0.04	43	0.13
Blumental 1952		23	0.32	13	0.01	12	0.13	14	0.59	19	0.53	12	0.56
Boshniakovich 1969		21	0.33	54	0.00	16	0.10	16	0.56	40	0.24	24	0.37
Brailowsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Bunin 1987		57	0.20	62	0.00	59	0.05	60	0.05	77	0.04	72	0.04
Bunin 1987b		54	0.21	70	0.00	57	0.07	53	0.07	69	0.04	60	0.05
Chiu 1999		52	0.21	80	0.00	58	0.06	56	0.06	80	0.04	57	0.05
Cohen 1997		26	0.31	71	0.00	33	0.08	29	0.41	35	0.36	22	0.38
Cortot 1951		12	0.34	39	0.00	18	0.09	18	0.54	19	0.54	13	0.54
Csalog 1996		62	0.18	81	0.00	72	0.04	67	0.04	52	0.06	63	0.05
Czerny 1949		42	0.26	42	0.00	30	0.07	37	0.33	28	0.61	16	0.45
Czerny 1990		80	0.06	49	0.00	73	0.04	76	0.04	74	0.03	79	0.03
Duchoud 2007		58	0.19	76	0.00	64	0.04	74	0.04	72	0.04	71	0.04
Ezaki 2006		1	0.46	1	0.34	1	0.34	3	0.75	19	0.62	2	0.68
Falvay 1989		56	0.21	12	0.01	55	0.05	61	0.05	80	0.03	68	0.04
Farrell 1958		31	0.31	60	0.00	36	0.11	33	0.36	23	0.41	20	0.38
Ferenczy 1958		13	0.34	29	0.00	21	0.10	21	0.52	9	0.81	5	0.65
Fliere 1977		37	0.28	30	0.00	31	0.09	30	0.40	77	0.04	41	0.13
Fou 1978		25	0.32	10	0.01	14	0.11	15	0.58	36	0.25	21	0.38
Francois 1956		51	0.22	57	0.00	54	0.06	55	0.06	50	0.06	56	0.06
Friedman 1923		41	0.27	88	0.00	41	0.07	42	0.19	60	0.07	44	0.12
Friedman 1923b		39	0.27	63	0.00	39	0.09	39	0.24	55	0.08	39	0.14
Friedman 1930		65	0.17	43	0.00	53	0.10	47	0.10	65	0.05	51	0.07
Garcia 2007		36	0.28	27	0.00	38	0.14	35	0.34	53	0.06	38	0.14
Garcia 2007b		82	0.04	64	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	79	0.03	82	0.03
Gierzod 1998		6	0.39	5	0.05	6	0.22	6	0.68	12	0.66	3	0.67
Gornostaeva 1994		35	0.28	24	0.00	40	0.07	40	0.24	35	0.31	30	0.27
Groot 1988		67	0.16	89	0.00	69	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.03	81	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		7	0.37	55	0.00	15	0.13	11	0.61	39	0.18	26	0.33
Hatto 1993		83	0.04	47	0.00	83	0.03	79	0.03	89	0.02	89	0.02
Hatto 1997		79	0.09	84	0.00	79	0.04	72	0.04	89	0.02	78	0.03
Horowitz 1949		48	0.24	58	0.00	47	0.07	52	0.07	53	0.06	55	0.06
Indjic 1988		87	0.00	52	0.00	88	0.03	86	0.03	89	0.02	88	0.02
Kapell 1951		70	0.14	56	0.00	62	0.05	62	0.05	68	0.05	59	0.05
Kissin 1993		88	-0.02	82	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.02
Kushner 1989		55	0.21	83	0.00	51	0.07	51	0.07	68	0.04	58	0.05
Luisada 1991		68	0.15	19	0.00	80	0.04	69	0.04	76	0.04	67	0.04
Lushtak 2004		43	0.26	25	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	67	0.05	49	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		59	0.19	66	0.00	65	0.05	63	0.05	68	0.04	69	0.04
Magaloff 1978		40	0.27	31	0.00	44	0.06	45	0.12	59	0.05	46	0.08
Magin 1975		89	-0.03	77	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.02
Michalowski 1933		69	0.14	22	0.00	60	0.04	73	0.04	69	0.06	62	0.05
Milkina 1970		74	0.13	85	0.00	76	0.04	71	0.04	70	0.03	75	0.03
Mohovich 1999		2	0.45	2	0.12	2	0.17	2	0.77	10	0.63	1	0.70
Moravec 1969		32	0.31	34	0.00	27	0.09	31	0.40	46	0.06	35	0.15
Morozova 2008		15	0.34	18	0.01	11	0.12	13	0.60	39	0.13	29	0.28
Neighaus 1950		28	0.31	15	0.01	29	0.13	27	0.46	68	0.04	40	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		60	0.19	40	0.00	61	0.06	58	0.06	51	0.07	53	0.06
Ohlsson 1999		22	0.33	23	0.00	28	0.11	24	0.50	54	0.05	34	0.16
Osinska 1989		34	0.29	36	0.00	43	0.07	43	0.16	41	0.14	36	0.15
Pachmann 1927		29	0.31	32	0.00	37	0.12	36	0.34	60	0.06	37	0.14
Paderewski 1930		85	0.01	86	0.00	87	0.03	85	0.03	88	0.02	86	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		50	0.23	33	0.00	48	0.08	48	0.08	68	0.04	52	0.06
Pierdomenico 2008		78	0.09	90	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	85	0.02	84	0.02
Poblocka 1999		18	0.34	26	0.00	26	0.09	22	0.51	38	0.25	25	0.36
Rabcewiczowa 1932		45	0.26	41	0.00	34	0.08	38	0.24	31	0.38	27	0.30
Rachmaninoff 1923		49	0.23	67	0.00	49	0.11	46	0.11	66	0.04	50	0.07
Rangell 2001		10	0.35	7	0.04	7	0.12	10	0.61	14	0.44	14	0.52
Richter 1976		66	0.17	53	0.00	71	0.05	66	0.05	53	0.06	61	0.05
Rosen 1989		5	0.41	8	0.04	5	0.25	4	0.71	25	0.49	9	0.59
Rosenthal 1930		27	0.31	73	0.00	20	0.09	23	0.50	17	0.48	15	0.49
Rosenthal 1931		33	0.29	45	0.00	19	0.09	20	0.53	17	0.61	11	0.57
Rosenthal 1931b		14	0.34	21	0.00	13	0.11	12	0.60	12	0.71	6	0.65
Rosenthal 1931c		46	0.26	46	0.00	42	0.07	41	0.19	38	0.26	32	0.22
Rosenthal 1931d		38	0.27	74	0.00	35	0.11	32	0.37	18	0.50	17	0.43
Rossi 2007		86	0.00	50	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	79	0.03	83	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		20	0.33	16	0.01	24	0.08	34	0.36	29	0.23	28	0.29
Rubinstein 1952		77	0.10	44	0.00	68	0.03	77	0.03	85	0.02	90	0.02
Rubinstein 1966		30	0.31	9	0.03	17	0.10	26	0.46	41	0.11	31	0.22
Schilhawsky 1960		44	0.26	37	0.00	46	0.06	57	0.06	37	0.27	42	0.13
Shebanova 2002		73	0.13	78	0.00	74	0.05	64	0.05	72	0.05	65	0.05
Smith 1975		47	0.25	68	0.00	50	0.08	49	0.08	46	0.08	47	0.08
Sokolov 2002		63	0.18	38	0.00	63	0.04	70	0.04	81	0.02	74	0.03
Sztompka 1959		76	0.11	59	0.00	75	0.04	68	0.04	84	0.03	76	0.03
Tomsic 1995		64	0.18	48	0.00	52	0.08	50	0.08	70	0.04	54	0.06
Uninsky 1932		53	0.21	65	0.00	56	0.06	54	0.06	78	0.04	64	0.05
Uninsky 1971		4	0.44	3	0.11	4	0.25	5	0.70	7	0.58	7	0.64
Wasowski 1980		81	0.04	87	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	81	0.04	73	0.03
Zak 1937		16	0.34	35	0.00	23	0.08	19	0.53	33	0.33	18	0.42
Zak 1951		19	0.33	17	0.01	25	0.08	25	0.50	28	0.35	19	0.42
Average		3	0.44	4	0.07	3	0.20	1	0.78	67	0.04	33	0.18
Random 1		91	-0.16	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01
Random 2		84	0.03	79	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	35	0.19	48	0.08
Random 3		90	-0.05	61	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	23	0.33	45	0.10

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).