Harasiewicz 1955

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		45	0.39	62	0.00	30	0.07	27	0.32	21	0.49	29	0.40
Anderszewski 2003		55	0.37	70	0.00	39	0.06	34	0.24	10	0.59	30	0.38
Ashkenazy 1981		33	0.41	32	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	70	0.05	76	0.05
Bacha 2000		73	0.29	28	0.00	43	0.06	45	0.11	27	0.36	43	0.20
Badura 1965		77	0.24	43	0.00	86	0.03	87	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.03
Barbosa 1983		28	0.42	18	0.00	32	0.07	41	0.15	25	0.40	41	0.24
Biret 1990		64	0.32	90	0.00	57	0.05	65	0.05	16	0.59	45	0.17
Blet 2003		10	0.48	38	0.00	25	0.09	21	0.43	12	0.64	17	0.52
Block 1995		2	0.60	11	0.01	2	0.20	2	0.77	3	0.79	1	0.78
Blumental 1952		68	0.31	58	0.00	70	0.06	52	0.06	37	0.21	57	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		24	0.44	41	0.00	12	0.11	11	0.55	13	0.59	14	0.57
Brailowsky 1960		54	0.37	71	0.00	42	0.07	39	0.18	11	0.61	32	0.33
Bunin 1987		80	0.22	86	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	62	0.05	82	0.04
Bunin 1987b		79	0.22	63	0.00	83	0.04	77	0.04	57	0.06	71	0.05
Chiu 1999		5	0.53	16	0.00	33	0.07	44	0.14	48	0.09	56	0.11
Cohen 1997		50	0.38	9	0.01	34	0.06	38	0.19	25	0.46	34	0.30
Cortot 1951		61	0.36	33	0.00	55	0.04	71	0.04	27	0.43	54	0.13
Csalog 1996		41	0.40	36	0.00	67	0.07	46	0.07	29	0.34	46	0.15
Czerny 1949		69	0.30	65	0.00	35	0.05	36	0.21	18	0.69	31	0.38
Czerny 1990		75	0.28	66	0.00	69	0.06	55	0.06	56	0.07	70	0.06
Duchoud 2007		66	0.31	87	0.00	68	0.06	50	0.06	55	0.06	68	0.06
Ezaki 2006		72	0.30	83	0.00	71	0.05	63	0.05	44	0.18	59	0.09
Falvay 1989		71	0.30	73	0.00	73	0.05	64	0.05	59	0.04	78	0.04
Farrell 1958		83	0.22	77	0.00	80	0.04	72	0.04	61	0.05	79	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		82	0.22	45	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	34	0.53	53	0.13
Fliere 1977		7	0.51	10	0.01	20	0.09	19	0.46	37	0.45	23	0.45
Fou 1978		36	0.41	74	0.00	38	0.06	33	0.24	31	0.36	35	0.29
Francois 1956		23	0.44	78	0.00	26	0.09	18	0.46	15	0.67	15	0.56
Friedman 1923		37	0.41	26	0.00	65	0.05	60	0.05	49	0.09	66	0.07
Friedman 1923b		35	0.41	59	0.00	59	0.04	70	0.04	50	0.09	69	0.06
Friedman 1930		30	0.42	20	0.00	61	0.04	74	0.04	43	0.18	64	0.08
Garcia 2007		40	0.40	5	0.03	10	0.11	12	0.53	10	0.64	12	0.58
Garcia 2007b		84	0.18	60	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	77	0.03	89	0.03
Gierzod 1998		78	0.23	75	0.00	74	0.05	57	0.05	63	0.05	74	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		17	0.45	4	0.05	6	0.15	10	0.55	10	0.71	8	0.62
Groot 1988		32	0.42	42	0.00	31	0.07	24	0.40	42	0.17	39	0.26
Harasiewicz 1955		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Hatto 1993		18	0.44	46	0.00	28	0.09	31	0.26	33	0.28	36	0.27
Hatto 1997		57	0.36	79	0.00	56	0.04	69	0.04	33	0.22	62	0.09
Horowitz 1949		58	0.36	53	0.00	66	0.06	48	0.06	43	0.18	58	0.10
Indjic 1988		48	0.39	61	0.00	50	0.06	54	0.06	57	0.07	67	0.06
Kapell 1951		26	0.42	19	0.00	17	0.11	23	0.42	22	0.40	27	0.41
Kissin 1993		74	0.29	39	0.00	72	0.04	68	0.04	59	0.06	72	0.05
Kushner 1989		70	0.30	57	0.00	76	0.03	88	0.03	57	0.05	80	0.04
Luisada 1991		43	0.40	49	0.00	45	0.07	43	0.14	42	0.24	44	0.18
Lushtak 2004		65	0.32	17	0.00	77	0.04	75	0.04	47	0.06	75	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		44	0.40	80	0.00	58	0.04	67	0.04	37	0.19	61	0.09
Magaloff 1978		51	0.38	37	0.00	46	0.06	51	0.06	37	0.30	50	0.13
Magin 1975		53	0.37	64	0.00	63	0.05	62	0.05	36	0.33	51	0.13
Michalowski 1933		20	0.44	15	0.01	22	0.09	25	0.38	12	0.54	24	0.45
Milkina 1970		42	0.40	34	0.00	13	0.09	15	0.50	9	0.65	13	0.57
Mohovich 1999		11	0.48	40	0.00	9	0.13	8	0.58	8	0.67	7	0.62
Moravec 1969		9	0.50	8	0.01	5	0.29	5	0.67	2	0.77	4	0.72
Morozova 2008		39	0.40	30	0.00	49	0.06	53	0.06	72	0.04	73	0.05
Neighaus 1950		4	0.54	3	0.08	3	0.20	3	0.74	3	0.75	3	0.74
Niedzielski 1931		56	0.36	47	0.00	62	0.04	66	0.04	42	0.17	63	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		6	0.52	27	0.00	8	0.11	7	0.59	13	0.60	11	0.59
Osinska 1989		3	0.56	2	0.08	4	0.26	4	0.69	3	0.80	2	0.74
Pachmann 1927		21	0.44	50	0.00	44	0.05	42	0.14	27	0.48	37	0.26
Paderewski 1930		52	0.38	55	0.00	64	0.05	58	0.05	37	0.32	52	0.13
Perlemuter 1992		12	0.48	31	0.00	21	0.07	22	0.42	13	0.66	16	0.53
Pierdomenico 2008		59	0.36	51	0.00	53	0.05	59	0.05	23	0.39	48	0.14
Poblocka 1999		63	0.34	54	0.00	40	0.06	37	0.20	33	0.30	40	0.24
Rabcewiczowa 1932		60	0.36	7	0.03	14	0.08	26	0.37	19	0.65	20	0.49
Rachmaninoff 1923		67	0.31	76	0.00	54	0.04	73	0.04	37	0.21	60	0.09
Rangell 2001		38	0.40	67	0.00	27	0.09	20	0.45	8	0.54	21	0.49
Richter 1976		14	0.47	52	0.00	51	0.07	47	0.07	45	0.28	49	0.14
Rosen 1989		8	0.51	29	0.00	7	0.10	6	0.62	8	0.66	6	0.64
Rosenthal 1930		76	0.24	68	0.00	75	0.03	83	0.03	51	0.06	81	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.12	88	0.00	87	0.03	80	0.03	64	0.04	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.14	84	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	62	0.04	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		81	0.22	81	0.00	79	0.03	78	0.03	52	0.05	84	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.10	89	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	49	0.06	83	0.04
Rossi 2007		87	0.12	72	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	47	0.06	77	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		47	0.39	12	0.01	36	0.08	35	0.22	9	0.45	33	0.31
Rubinstein 1952		19	0.44	21	0.00	11	0.10	9	0.56	6	0.66	9	0.61
Rubinstein 1966		16	0.46	82	0.00	18	0.15	14	0.52	9	0.49	19	0.50
Schilhawsky 1960		29	0.42	13	0.01	60	0.04	76	0.04	13	0.53	47	0.15
Shebanova 2002		34	0.41	44	0.00	52	0.05	61	0.05	49	0.09	65	0.07
Smith 1975		25	0.43	14	0.01	29	0.07	28	0.32	13	0.61	25	0.44
Sokolov 2002		13	0.48	35	0.00	15	0.08	13	0.52	5	0.70	10	0.60
Sztompka 1959		46	0.39	48	0.00	37	0.05	32	0.26	39	0.26	38	0.26
Tomsic 1995		62	0.35	24	0.00	41	0.07	40	0.16	22	0.31	42	0.22
Uninsky 1932		15	0.46	25	0.00	16	0.10	16	0.49	21	0.45	22	0.47
Uninsky 1971		22	0.44	22	0.00	19	0.10	17	0.48	9	0.52	18	0.50
Wasowski 1980		49	0.39	69	0.00	47	0.05	56	0.05	42	0.23	55	0.11
Zak 1937		31	0.42	23	0.00	23	0.07	30	0.30	16	0.53	28	0.40
Zak 1951		27	0.42	6	0.03	24	0.13	29	0.31	12	0.61	26	0.43
Average		1	0.70	1	0.57	1	0.56	1	0.88	9	0.59	5	0.72
Random 1		90	-0.04	56	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	79	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	-0.01	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	61	0.05	86	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.05	85	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	55	0.03	90	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).