Chiu 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		40	0.41	55	0.00	51	0.07	53	0.07	37	0.27	51	0.14
Anderszewski 2003		73	0.28	77	0.00	81	0.04	71	0.04	65	0.04	70	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		5	0.57	4	0.05	7	0.15	8	0.72	16	0.75	8	0.73
Bacha 2000		57	0.36	23	0.00	32	0.10	39	0.25	13	0.54	36	0.37
Badura 1965		74	0.26	56	0.00	67	0.05	70	0.05	58	0.04	73	0.04
Barbosa 1983		33	0.44	78	0.00	45	0.08	45	0.15	18	0.50	44	0.27
Biret 1990		51	0.36	43	0.00	56	0.05	69	0.05	23	0.53	49	0.16
Blet 2003		23	0.48	36	0.00	39	0.10	33	0.35	19	0.57	31	0.45
Block 1995		56	0.36	29	0.00	64	0.08	50	0.08	49	0.06	62	0.07
Blumental 1952		54	0.36	65	0.00	55	0.06	61	0.06	35	0.28	52	0.13
Boshniakovich 1969		70	0.29	82	0.00	63	0.08	49	0.08	46	0.08	59	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		78	0.21	83	0.00	71	0.04	80	0.04	56	0.06	65	0.05
Bunin 1987		43	0.40	30	0.00	35	0.08	36	0.29	15	0.54	34	0.40
Bunin 1987b		42	0.40	27	0.00	34	0.08	34	0.32	15	0.55	32	0.42
Chiu 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Cohen 1997		67	0.31	66	0.00	79	0.03	83	0.03	60	0.05	75	0.04
Cortot 1951		63	0.32	50	0.00	80	0.04	74	0.04	63	0.04	78	0.04
Csalog 1996		17	0.50	24	0.00	22	0.11	21	0.60	3	0.76	15	0.68
Czerny 1949		80	0.19	70	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	73	0.04	87	0.03
Czerny 1990		16	0.50	12	0.01	13	0.11	13	0.67	9	0.80	9	0.73
Duchoud 2007		7	0.55	3	0.07	3	0.20	3	0.76	3	0.79	3	0.77
Ezaki 2006		82	0.18	84	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03
Falvay 1989		48	0.37	85	0.00	61	0.06	57	0.06	44	0.12	58	0.08
Farrell 1958		34	0.44	31	0.00	40	0.08	42	0.21	5	0.64	38	0.37
Ferenczy 1958		88	0.08	51	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	72	0.04	86	0.03
Fliere 1977		4	0.58	22	0.00	11	0.13	5	0.73	19	0.69	11	0.71
Fou 1978		24	0.47	57	0.00	38	0.08	37	0.27	20	0.43	40	0.34
Francois 1956		77	0.22	61	0.00	72	0.04	78	0.04	63	0.04	81	0.04
Friedman 1923		12	0.53	18	0.00	10	0.18	7	0.73	7	0.78	5	0.75
Friedman 1923b		13	0.53	10	0.01	9	0.14	6	0.73	7	0.78	4	0.75
Friedman 1930		10	0.54	16	0.01	15	0.13	14	0.66	8	0.74	14	0.70
Garcia 2007		60	0.33	40	0.00	49	0.10	46	0.10	34	0.37	47	0.19
Garcia 2007b		49	0.37	14	0.01	29	0.11	30	0.38	20	0.55	30	0.46
Gierzod 1998		85	0.15	58	0.00	76	0.04	75	0.04	60	0.05	71	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		62	0.32	44	0.00	66	0.04	73	0.04	59	0.05	76	0.04
Groot 1988		37	0.43	47	0.00	31	0.10	26	0.46	29	0.34	35	0.40
Harasiewicz 1955		14	0.53	34	0.00	48	0.09	48	0.09	44	0.14	56	0.11
Hatto 1993		9	0.54	21	0.00	12	0.12	16	0.64	11	0.61	21	0.62
Hatto 1997		39	0.41	52	0.00	50	0.07	56	0.07	34	0.22	53	0.12
Horowitz 1949		21	0.49	8	0.01	16	0.14	11	0.67	3	0.79	6	0.73
Indjic 1988		20	0.50	71	0.00	19	0.15	18	0.63	11	0.64	20	0.63
Kapell 1951		15	0.52	9	0.01	14	0.12	15	0.65	6	0.63	16	0.64
Kissin 1993		44	0.39	72	0.00	42	0.07	40	0.22	28	0.51	41	0.33
Kushner 1989		18	0.50	38	0.00	30	0.10	31	0.38	22	0.45	33	0.41
Luisada 1991		29	0.46	15	0.01	27	0.09	29	0.43	22	0.53	26	0.48
Lushtak 2004		59	0.35	28	0.00	74	0.05	66	0.05	44	0.10	61	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		45	0.38	25	0.00	52	0.07	52	0.07	67	0.04	66	0.05
Magaloff 1978		53	0.36	62	0.00	37	0.10	35	0.31	24	0.44	37	0.37
Magin 1975		46	0.38	73	0.00	43	0.08	43	0.19	27	0.50	42	0.31
Michalowski 1933		28	0.46	6	0.03	8	0.15	12	0.67	2	0.75	12	0.71
Milkina 1970		64	0.32	60	0.00	58	0.05	63	0.05	27	0.39	50	0.14
Mohovich 1999		72	0.28	86	0.00	70	0.04	72	0.04	65	0.05	74	0.04
Moravec 1969		41	0.41	35	0.00	36	0.09	38	0.26	15	0.51	39	0.36
Morozova 2008		6	0.57	5	0.04	5	0.13	10	0.69	3	0.71	13	0.70
Neighaus 1950		32	0.45	45	0.00	24	0.09	25	0.48	17	0.44	29	0.46
Niedzielski 1931		31	0.45	26	0.00	17	0.15	20	0.61	6	0.66	18	0.63
Ohlsson 1999		8	0.54	11	0.01	18	0.11	17	0.63	6	0.65	17	0.64
Osinska 1989		65	0.32	74	0.00	59	0.05	64	0.05	48	0.07	63	0.06
Pachmann 1927		26	0.46	13	0.01	21	0.08	22	0.55	11	0.72	19	0.63
Paderewski 1930		61	0.32	87	0.00	54	0.06	58	0.06	43	0.22	55	0.11
Perlemuter 1992		68	0.31	75	0.00	65	0.10	47	0.10	56	0.05	60	0.07
Pierdomenico 2008		27	0.46	41	0.00	25	0.09	23	0.50	5	0.69	22	0.59
Poblocka 1999		55	0.36	46	0.00	41	0.07	41	0.21	40	0.23	45	0.22
Rabcewiczowa 1932		79	0.19	42	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	68	0.04	84	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		35	0.44	7	0.02	23	0.12	24	0.49	17	0.64	24	0.56
Rangell 2001		52	0.36	37	0.00	46	0.07	54	0.07	18	0.40	48	0.17
Richter 1976		2	0.62	17	0.01	6	0.16	4	0.76	7	0.82	2	0.79
Rosen 1989		22	0.48	19	0.00	26	0.10	27	0.46	19	0.55	25	0.50
Rosenthal 1930		69	0.30	53	0.00	73	0.04	77	0.04	63	0.05	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.18	67	0.00	82	0.06	60	0.06	52	0.05	68	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.16	79	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	53	0.05	79	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		71	0.29	64	0.00	53	0.06	62	0.06	37	0.26	54	0.12
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.08	54	0.00	75	0.04	79	0.04	57	0.04	77	0.04
Rossi 2007		86	0.11	88	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	72	0.04	83	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		50	0.37	76	0.00	57	0.05	68	0.05	31	0.19	57	0.10
Rubinstein 1952		76	0.24	63	0.00	68	0.05	67	0.05	75	0.04	80	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		47	0.38	80	0.00	62	0.07	55	0.07	48	0.06	64	0.06
Schilhawsky 1960		38	0.43	20	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.15	10	0.61	43	0.30
Shebanova 2002		3	0.60	2	0.10	2	0.38	2	0.80	7	0.81	1	0.80
Smith 1975		75	0.25	89	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	73	0.03	90	0.02
Sokolov 2002		58	0.35	59	0.00	60	0.05	65	0.05	51	0.04	69	0.04
Sztompka 1959		25	0.46	81	0.00	28	0.09	28	0.44	23	0.48	28	0.46
Tomsic 1995		81	0.19	90	0.00	77	0.04	76	0.04	79	0.03	85	0.03
Uninsky 1932		19	0.50	48	0.00	20	0.13	19	0.62	14	0.56	23	0.59
Uninsky 1971		66	0.31	68	0.00	69	0.06	59	0.06	71	0.04	67	0.05
Wasowski 1980		11	0.54	32	0.00	4	0.14	9	0.69	4	0.75	10	0.72
Zak 1937		30	0.45	39	0.00	33	0.07	32	0.36	13	0.63	27	0.48
Zak 1951		36	0.43	49	0.00	47	0.08	51	0.08	14	0.57	46	0.21
Average		1	0.72	1	0.57	1	0.56	1	0.89	8	0.60	7	0.73
Random 1		90	0.00	33	0.00	88	0.02	90	0.02	62	0.04	89	0.03
Random 2		89	0.00	69	0.00	90	0.02	87	0.02	67	0.04	88	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.05	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	80	0.02	91	0.01

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).