Farrell 1958

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

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).