Garcia 2007b

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		53	0.21	68	0.00	53	0.08	48	0.08	59	0.04	54	0.06
Anderszewski 2003		71	0.09	42	0.00	65	0.05	59	0.05	53	0.06	58	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		2	0.54	7	0.02	3	0.26	2	0.82	18	0.69	2	0.75
Bacha 2000		48	0.25	27	0.00	41	0.07	42	0.16	30	0.29	31	0.22
Badura 1965		63	0.15	55	0.00	64	0.04	67	0.04	71	0.03	75	0.03
Barbosa 1983		25	0.35	31	0.00	25	0.11	16	0.59	20	0.47	14	0.53
Biret 1990		39	0.30	43	0.00	55	0.06	58	0.06	45	0.12	49	0.08
Blet 2003		13	0.41	8	0.02	8	0.14	12	0.68	25	0.53	11	0.60
Block 1995		49	0.24	23	0.00	32	0.10	37	0.31	68	0.04	43	0.11
Blumental 1952		26	0.35	63	0.00	26	0.12	23	0.52	20	0.50	15	0.51
Boshniakovich 1969		21	0.37	11	0.01	28	0.12	26	0.48	35	0.31	23	0.39
Brailowsky 1960		82	0.04	46	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.03	67	0.03
Bunin 1987		11	0.44	41	0.00	11	0.14	10	0.69	9	0.62	9	0.65
Bunin 1987b		10	0.44	16	0.00	10	0.15	9	0.69	9	0.62	6	0.65
Chiu 1999		22	0.37	25	0.00	16	0.14	20	0.55	30	0.38	17	0.46
Cohen 1997		54	0.19	19	0.00	56	0.06	57	0.06	62	0.04	59	0.05
Cortot 1951		86	-0.01	76	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.01	91	0.01
Csalog 1996		51	0.23	87	0.00	47	0.07	51	0.07	54	0.06	53	0.06
Czerny 1949		90	-0.03	78	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	83	0.02	88	0.01
Czerny 1990		18	0.39	79	0.00	29	0.12	33	0.34	35	0.39	24	0.36
Duchoud 2007		44	0.28	80	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	57	0.05	47	0.08
Ezaki 2006		73	0.08	88	0.00	61	0.03	75	0.03	82	0.02	83	0.02
Falvay 1989		50	0.23	47	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.14	66	0.03	51	0.06
Farrell 1958		65	0.12	58	0.00	59	0.05	62	0.05	83	0.03	61	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		87	-0.02	52	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	59	0.06	64	0.04
Fliere 1977		15	0.40	40	0.00	23	0.10	17	0.59	46	0.11	30	0.25
Fou 1978		46	0.26	44	0.00	48	0.07	52	0.07	60	0.04	57	0.05
Francois 1956		67	0.11	89	0.00	77	0.03	76	0.03	68	0.03	82	0.03
Friedman 1923		42	0.28	59	0.00	40	0.07	40	0.22	48	0.10	41	0.15
Friedman 1923b		36	0.31	14	0.00	35	0.08	30	0.36	47	0.11	33	0.20
Friedman 1930		32	0.32	36	0.00	34	0.10	31	0.35	47	0.10	34	0.19
Garcia 2007		16	0.40	4	0.08	4	0.26	6	0.71	5	0.67	4	0.69
Garcia 2007b		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Gierzod 1998		88	-0.02	71	0.00	70	0.05	63	0.05	80	0.02	73	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		79	0.06	90	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	91	0.01	90	0.01
Groot 1988		3	0.49	5	0.04	9	0.19	11	0.68	28	0.36	16	0.49
Harasiewicz 1955		57	0.18	39	0.00	63	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.03	79	0.03
Hatto 1993		7	0.45	48	0.00	5	0.19	4	0.76	14	0.59	5	0.67
Hatto 1997		27	0.35	33	0.00	14	0.15	18	0.55	23	0.36	20	0.44
Horowitz 1949		9	0.44	13	0.01	17	0.18	15	0.61	25	0.53	12	0.57
Indjic 1988		4	0.48	2	0.29	2	0.30	3	0.79	10	0.65	3	0.72
Kapell 1951		31	0.33	30	0.00	38	0.08	38	0.28	46	0.08	39	0.15
Kissin 1993		28	0.35	29	0.00	36	0.09	32	0.34	43	0.28	26	0.31
Kushner 1989		12	0.42	66	0.00	12	0.14	13	0.65	14	0.58	10	0.61
Luisada 1991		1	0.55	1	0.31	1	0.30	1	0.83	6	0.77	1	0.80
Lushtak 2004		58	0.17	9	0.01	50	0.08	47	0.08	38	0.13	45	0.10
Malcuzynski 1961		23	0.37	17	0.00	19	0.09	21	0.54	28	0.28	22	0.39
Magaloff 1978		55	0.18	49	0.00	57	0.05	64	0.05	70	0.04	60	0.04
Magin 1975		20	0.39	10	0.01	18	0.13	27	0.46	34	0.42	18	0.44
Michalowski 1933		8	0.44	3	0.10	7	0.24	7	0.71	9	0.60	7	0.65
Milkina 1970		72	0.09	34	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	78	0.03	70	0.03
Mohovich 1999		81	0.05	64	0.00	69	0.04	65	0.04	79	0.03	76	0.03
Moravec 1969		60	0.16	77	0.00	54	0.07	53	0.07	63	0.04	55	0.05
Morozova 2008		40	0.30	24	0.00	30	0.13	35	0.31	44	0.10	35	0.18
Neighaus 1950		43	0.28	69	0.00	51	0.06	54	0.06	87	0.02	78	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		38	0.30	45	0.00	33	0.09	36	0.31	53	0.06	42	0.14
Ohlsson 1999		56	0.18	37	0.00	62	0.04	74	0.04	80	0.04	62	0.04
Osinska 1989		76	0.07	53	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.02	84	0.02
Pachmann 1927		52	0.23	54	0.00	46	0.07	50	0.07	67	0.05	52	0.06
Paderewski 1930		29	0.34	22	0.00	22	0.10	25	0.52	32	0.38	19	0.44
Perlemuter 1992		47	0.26	81	0.00	58	0.06	56	0.06	57	0.05	56	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		19	0.39	20	0.00	15	0.16	19	0.55	16	0.53	13	0.54
Poblocka 1999		35	0.31	26	0.00	42	0.08	43	0.16	66	0.05	46	0.09
Rabcewiczowa 1932		68	0.10	82	0.00	84	0.03	80	0.03	83	0.02	86	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		34	0.31	50	0.00	39	0.09	39	0.23	36	0.21	32	0.22
Rangell 2001		74	0.08	60	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	83	0.03	77	0.03
Richter 1976		30	0.34	18	0.00	24	0.11	24	0.52	43	0.32	21	0.41
Rosen 1989		69	0.10	83	0.00	71	0.05	60	0.05	76	0.03	65	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		66	0.12	65	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	80	0.03	74	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		89	-0.02	74	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	72	0.03	72	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.03	84	0.00	75	0.04	69	0.04	64	0.04	66	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		78	0.06	91	0.00	74	0.04	73	0.04	85	0.02	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		77	0.06	15	0.00	60	0.07	49	0.07	47	0.07	50	0.07
Rossi 2007		85	0.00	67	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	81	0.03	85	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		70	0.09	75	0.00	72	0.04	70	0.04	74	0.03	69	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		64	0.14	85	0.00	73	0.04	72	0.04	86	0.02	81	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		62	0.16	70	0.00	52	0.06	55	0.06	80	0.03	63	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		41	0.29	38	0.00	49	0.09	46	0.09	31	0.30	38	0.16
Shebanova 2002		5	0.47	6	0.03	6	0.29	5	0.76	28	0.56	8	0.65
Smith 1975		75	0.07	72	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	91	0.01	87	0.01
Sokolov 2002		61	0.16	28	0.00	67	0.04	66	0.04	82	0.02	68	0.03
Sztompka 1959		24	0.36	86	0.00	20	0.07	22	0.54	45	0.13	29	0.26
Tomsic 1995		33	0.32	12	0.01	27	0.12	28	0.43	33	0.20	27	0.29
Uninsky 1932		14	0.40	21	0.00	21	0.09	14	0.61	43	0.18	25	0.33
Uninsky 1971		59	0.17	35	0.00	66	0.05	61	0.05	89	0.02	71	0.03
Wasowski 1980		17	0.39	57	0.00	31	0.10	29	0.41	49	0.07	36	0.17
Zak 1937		37	0.30	32	0.00	37	0.08	34	0.33	37	0.23	28	0.28
Zak 1951		45	0.27	56	0.00	43	0.08	41	0.17	44	0.13	40	0.15
Average		6	0.46	51	0.00	13	0.16	8	0.71	76	0.04	37	0.17
Random 1		83	0.03	73	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	32	0.24	48	0.08
Random 2		80	0.06	61	0.00	83	0.04	71	0.04	31	0.23	44	0.10
Random 3		91	-0.05	62	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	86	0.02	89	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).