Luisada 1991

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		46	0.37	18	0.00	36	0.07	37	0.28	30	0.36	36	0.32
Anderszewski 2003		79	0.14	86	0.00	75	0.05	62	0.05	56	0.05	70	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.60	14	0.00	4	0.22	3	0.82	8	0.82	1	0.82
Bacha 2000		77	0.20	60	0.00	68	0.04	70	0.04	66	0.04	74	0.04
Badura 1965		66	0.26	47	0.00	70	0.04	79	0.04	50	0.05	79	0.04
Barbosa 1983		13	0.48	43	0.00	15	0.15	10	0.70	2	0.74	7	0.72
Biret 1990		43	0.38	56	0.00	47	0.07	51	0.07	12	0.65	45	0.21
Blet 2003		5	0.57	5	0.05	6	0.26	5	0.78	2	0.79	5	0.78
Block 1995		53	0.34	70	0.00	53	0.08	50	0.08	52	0.06	56	0.07
Blumental 1952		59	0.30	57	0.00	64	0.07	54	0.07	55	0.05	63	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		34	0.41	36	0.00	28	0.09	27	0.47	26	0.46	27	0.46
Brailowsky 1960		78	0.15	17	0.00	81	0.04	76	0.04	69	0.04	75	0.04
Bunin 1987		20	0.46	24	0.00	20	0.10	16	0.60	8	0.65	15	0.62
Bunin 1987b		21	0.46	67	0.00	23	0.13	18	0.59	8	0.63	16	0.61
Chiu 1999		22	0.46	11	0.01	26	0.10	22	0.53	29	0.43	25	0.48
Cohen 1997		74	0.20	21	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	80	0.02	88	0.02
Cortot 1951		81	0.11	62	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.02	89	0.02
Csalog 1996		40	0.39	23	0.00	42	0.09	40	0.27	18	0.50	32	0.37
Czerny 1949		83	0.10	53	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	72	0.04	82	0.03
Czerny 1990		18	0.46	15	0.00	16	0.14	13	0.64	14	0.75	10	0.69
Duchoud 2007		35	0.40	46	0.00	44	0.11	43	0.23	32	0.33	40	0.28
Ezaki 2006		72	0.22	71	0.00	55	0.05	64	0.05	53	0.07	58	0.06
Falvay 1989		54	0.34	37	0.00	37	0.06	35	0.29	29	0.28	39	0.28
Farrell 1958		63	0.28	87	0.00	67	0.06	55	0.06	57	0.06	59	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		90	0.00	78	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	63	0.05	87	0.02
Fliere 1977		7	0.54	30	0.00	13	0.12	11	0.68	27	0.59	14	0.63
Fou 1978		51	0.35	19	0.00	41	0.07	44	0.22	40	0.21	44	0.21
Francois 1956		70	0.24	29	0.00	72	0.04	74	0.04	51	0.06	73	0.05
Friedman 1923		29	0.43	22	0.00	32	0.10	41	0.26	38	0.37	37	0.31
Friedman 1923b		24	0.44	68	0.00	30	0.10	32	0.34	35	0.45	31	0.39
Friedman 1930		39	0.39	34	0.00	48	0.10	47	0.10	42	0.28	48	0.17
Garcia 2007		45	0.37	40	0.00	46	0.14	46	0.14	33	0.37	43	0.23
Garcia 2007b		6	0.55	3	0.08	7	0.24	6	0.77	1	0.83	3	0.80
Gierzod 1998		84	0.09	38	0.00	76	0.05	67	0.05	74	0.03	77	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		75	0.20	74	0.00	74	0.04	77	0.04	74	0.03	84	0.03
Groot 1988		2	0.61	7	0.04	5	0.26	2	0.83	2	0.80	2	0.81
Harasiewicz 1955		36	0.40	55	0.00	38	0.07	42	0.24	43	0.14	46	0.18
Hatto 1993		8	0.54	6	0.05	3	0.22	7	0.76	7	0.74	6	0.75
Hatto 1997		14	0.48	26	0.00	9	0.25	8	0.72	4	0.70	8	0.71
Horowitz 1949		19	0.46	9	0.01	24	0.13	29	0.41	29	0.45	29	0.43
Indjic 1988		4	0.58	1	0.34	1	0.34	4	0.80	6	0.78	4	0.79
Kapell 1951		31	0.42	31	0.00	27	0.11	25	0.51	18	0.45	26	0.48
Kissin 1993		23	0.45	16	0.00	10	0.12	20	0.57	20	0.61	18	0.59
Kushner 1989		44	0.37	49	0.00	45	0.10	45	0.20	36	0.26	42	0.23
Luisada 1991		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Lushtak 2004		73	0.21	79	0.00	73	0.04	81	0.04	72	0.04	80	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		48	0.36	63	0.00	51	0.06	59	0.06	51	0.07	60	0.06
Magaloff 1978		61	0.30	80	0.00	63	0.06	56	0.06	57	0.05	65	0.05
Magin 1975		16	0.47	28	0.00	17	0.14	15	0.62	11	0.76	9	0.69
Michalowski 1933		12	0.50	10	0.01	11	0.11	14	0.63	8	0.60	17	0.61
Milkina 1970		71	0.22	69	0.00	62	0.05	60	0.05	38	0.25	53	0.11
Mohovich 1999		69	0.24	75	0.00	66	0.08	49	0.08	57	0.06	57	0.07
Moravec 1969		50	0.35	58	0.00	52	0.07	53	0.07	35	0.21	50	0.12
Morozova 2008		25	0.44	32	0.00	12	0.11	17	0.59	12	0.53	21	0.56
Neighaus 1950		38	0.40	33	0.00	43	0.09	34	0.29	49	0.08	49	0.15
Niedzielski 1931		30	0.42	35	0.00	25	0.09	26	0.51	18	0.49	24	0.50
Ohlsson 1999		56	0.33	72	0.00	56	0.05	66	0.05	66	0.04	76	0.04
Osinska 1989		62	0.29	76	0.00	59	0.05	63	0.05	54	0.06	64	0.05
Pachmann 1927		49	0.36	81	0.00	58	0.06	58	0.06	49	0.07	61	0.06
Paderewski 1930		32	0.41	50	0.00	35	0.08	30	0.38	24	0.54	28	0.45
Perlemuter 1992		37	0.40	27	0.00	49	0.09	48	0.09	38	0.34	47	0.17
Pierdomenico 2008		52	0.34	42	0.00	57	0.04	71	0.04	53	0.06	67	0.05
Poblocka 1999		15	0.47	20	0.00	21	0.09	21	0.55	9	0.58	20	0.56
Rabcewiczowa 1932		76	0.20	88	0.00	78	0.04	72	0.04	54	0.06	69	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		27	0.43	39	0.00	31	0.08	39	0.27	26	0.46	33	0.35
Rangell 2001		68	0.25	44	0.00	69	0.05	69	0.05	51	0.06	72	0.05
Richter 1976		33	0.41	12	0.01	39	0.06	36	0.28	41	0.39	35	0.33
Rosen 1989		65	0.26	65	0.00	65	0.07	52	0.07	75	0.03	71	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		64	0.27	51	0.00	71	0.04	73	0.04	55	0.05	78	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		87	0.04	84	0.00	87	0.02	84	0.02	79	0.02	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.07	85	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	71	0.03	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		82	0.11	82	0.00	82	0.04	78	0.04	88	0.01	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.12	66	0.00	79	0.04	80	0.04	59	0.04	81	0.04
Rossi 2007		89	0.01	89	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	76	0.03	85	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		60	0.30	83	0.00	61	0.05	68	0.05	56	0.06	68	0.05
Rubinstein 1952		47	0.37	61	0.00	40	0.06	38	0.27	23	0.43	34	0.34
Rubinstein 1966		42	0.38	13	0.00	33	0.08	33	0.32	33	0.23	41	0.27
Schilhawsky 1960		58	0.30	73	0.00	54	0.05	65	0.05	34	0.28	51	0.12
Shebanova 2002		9	0.53	4	0.07	8	0.30	9	0.72	22	0.63	11	0.67
Smith 1975		67	0.25	45	0.00	77	0.04	75	0.04	54	0.06	66	0.05
Sokolov 2002		55	0.33	52	0.00	50	0.06	57	0.06	40	0.20	52	0.11
Sztompka 1959		28	0.43	64	0.00	34	0.07	31	0.36	40	0.24	38	0.29
Tomsic 1995		41	0.39	25	0.00	18	0.15	24	0.51	8	0.55	23	0.53
Uninsky 1932		10	0.50	8	0.01	19	0.11	23	0.53	31	0.35	30	0.43
Uninsky 1971		57	0.31	54	0.00	60	0.05	61	0.05	52	0.07	62	0.06
Wasowski 1980		11	0.50	41	0.00	14	0.14	12	0.66	12	0.66	12	0.66
Zak 1937		17	0.47	59	0.00	22	0.10	19	0.58	6	0.73	13	0.65
Zak 1951		26	0.44	90	0.00	29	0.08	28	0.41	7	0.68	22	0.53
Average		1	0.65	2	0.24	2	0.29	1	0.87	24	0.39	19	0.58
Random 1		86	0.07	48	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	22	0.32	55	0.08
Random 2		88	0.04	77	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	24	0.32	54	0.10
Random 3		91	-0.02	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	45	0.07	83	0.03

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).