Garcia 2007

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