Magaloff 1978

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		72	0.19	43	0.00	77	0.03	82	0.03	69	0.04	87	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		85	0.08	36	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	78	0.03	84	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		45	0.32	80	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	68	0.06	56	0.08
Bacha 2000		73	0.19	73	0.00	70	0.03	77	0.03	49	0.06	72	0.04
Badura 1965		76	0.18	25	0.00	69	0.04	68	0.04	53	0.05	79	0.04
Barbosa 1983		68	0.21	49	0.00	71	0.04	72	0.04	71	0.04	76	0.04
Biret 1990		67	0.21	67	0.00	66	0.04	65	0.04	50	0.07	69	0.05
Blet 2003		61	0.26	54	0.00	62	0.04	66	0.04	50	0.08	61	0.06
Block 1995		9	0.54	9	0.02	5	0.19	12	0.70	7	0.72	11	0.71
Blumental 1952		77	0.18	58	0.00	79	0.04	71	0.04	75	0.03	88	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		12	0.50	11	0.01	13	0.24	16	0.56	17	0.53	18	0.54
Brailowsky 1960		59	0.27	33	0.00	55	0.05	59	0.05	45	0.12	53	0.08
Bunin 1987		52	0.29	59	0.00	57	0.05	58	0.05	44	0.13	57	0.08
Bunin 1987b		53	0.29	22	0.00	58	0.05	63	0.05	44	0.11	58	0.07
Chiu 1999		36	0.36	50	0.00	29	0.08	24	0.44	35	0.31	32	0.37
Cohen 1997		33	0.38	24	0.00	38	0.08	42	0.19	33	0.39	40	0.27
Cortot 1951		37	0.36	46	0.00	33	0.07	29	0.40	10	0.61	22	0.49
Csalog 1996		26	0.41	47	0.00	30	0.06	27	0.43	14	0.56	21	0.49
Czerny 1949		86	0.08	68	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	55	0.05	78	0.04
Czerny 1990		78	0.17	81	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	57	0.07	68	0.05
Duchoud 2007		64	0.24	45	0.00	50	0.06	52	0.06	68	0.04	67	0.05
Ezaki 2006		49	0.30	37	0.00	51	0.06	51	0.06	30	0.37	43	0.15
Falvay 1989		80	0.16	6	0.02	46	0.07	47	0.07	45	0.12	51	0.09
Farrell 1958		79	0.16	52	0.00	78	0.04	69	0.04	41	0.16	54	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		88	0.00	72	0.00	90	0.02	88	0.02	73	0.04	86	0.03
Fliere 1977		1	0.63	1	0.37	1	0.37	2	0.84	8	0.81	1	0.82
Fou 1978		55	0.29	15	0.01	44	0.06	45	0.12	44	0.14	46	0.13
Francois 1956		50	0.30	82	0.00	67	0.04	67	0.04	41	0.22	52	0.09
Friedman 1923		10	0.54	14	0.01	10	0.16	7	0.73	8	0.77	4	0.75
Friedman 1923b		11	0.53	74	0.00	11	0.19	11	0.71	8	0.78	6	0.74
Friedman 1930		17	0.45	16	0.01	15	0.12	13	0.61	14	0.65	12	0.63
Garcia 2007		41	0.34	12	0.01	22	0.08	25	0.44	24	0.43	27	0.43
Garcia 2007b		74	0.18	62	0.00	73	0.04	70	0.04	64	0.05	80	0.04
Gierzod 1998		46	0.31	87	0.00	35	0.09	33	0.36	21	0.54	24	0.44
Gornostaeva 1994		16	0.45	10	0.01	21	0.11	21	0.47	16	0.64	17	0.55
Groot 1988		23	0.42	34	0.00	24	0.09	19	0.49	38	0.22	38	0.33
Harasiewicz 1955		32	0.38	39	0.00	39	0.09	37	0.30	51	0.06	47	0.13
Hatto 1993		65	0.23	83	0.00	68	0.03	75	0.03	63	0.07	70	0.05
Hatto 1997		81	0.15	84	0.00	84	0.03	76	0.03	77	0.03	85	0.03
Horowitz 1949		30	0.39	28	0.00	41	0.08	39	0.27	28	0.46	35	0.35
Indjic 1988		71	0.19	88	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	67	0.06	75	0.04
Kapell 1951		75	0.18	85	0.00	81	0.03	85	0.03	72	0.05	74	0.04
Kissin 1993		43	0.33	26	0.00	27	0.06	31	0.37	29	0.50	26	0.43
Kushner 1989		28	0.39	63	0.00	36	0.07	34	0.35	32	0.36	34	0.35
Luisada 1991		51	0.30	30	0.00	56	0.05	57	0.05	56	0.06	63	0.05
Lushtak 2004		40	0.34	69	0.00	28	0.07	32	0.37	10	0.52	25	0.44
Malcuzynski 1961		13	0.49	7	0.02	7	0.18	8	0.72	3	0.71	10	0.71
Magaloff 1978		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Magin 1975		39	0.34	60	0.00	40	0.08	40	0.26	30	0.46	33	0.35
Michalowski 1933		20	0.43	17	0.00	25	0.08	30	0.38	30	0.39	31	0.38
Milkina 1970		87	0.03	75	0.00	86	0.03	87	0.03	71	0.03	82	0.03
Mohovich 1999		31	0.38	44	0.00	34	0.07	35	0.33	22	0.37	36	0.35
Moravec 1969		70	0.20	70	0.00	65	0.05	62	0.05	78	0.03	73	0.04
Morozova 2008		29	0.39	31	0.00	23	0.08	23	0.46	28	0.33	29	0.39
Neighaus 1950		15	0.46	32	0.00	17	0.12	17	0.55	22	0.38	23	0.46
Niedzielski 1931		21	0.43	13	0.01	37	0.06	38	0.28	38	0.21	42	0.24
Ohlsson 1999		7	0.54	21	0.00	8	0.19	4	0.76	4	0.68	9	0.72
Osinska 1989		6	0.56	8	0.02	9	0.20	9	0.72	6	0.77	5	0.74
Pachmann 1927		5	0.59	4	0.04	4	0.26	3	0.79	1	0.85	2	0.82
Paderewski 1930		25	0.41	23	0.00	20	0.11	18	0.51	19	0.60	16	0.55
Perlemuter 1992		3	0.60	5	0.03	6	0.23	5	0.73	4	0.79	3	0.76
Pierdomenico 2008		22	0.42	29	0.00	31	0.07	28	0.42	13	0.60	20	0.50
Poblocka 1999		34	0.36	41	0.00	26	0.09	36	0.33	39	0.24	39	0.28
Rabcewiczowa 1932		47	0.31	42	0.00	60	0.05	56	0.05	37	0.26	49	0.11
Rachmaninoff 1923		54	0.29	71	0.00	59	0.07	48	0.07	35	0.23	45	0.13
Rangell 2001		60	0.27	76	0.00	53	0.07	46	0.07	59	0.05	62	0.06
Richter 1976		8	0.54	51	0.00	12	0.29	10	0.72	19	0.75	7	0.73
Rosen 1989		4	0.59	3	0.07	3	0.30	6	0.73	6	0.73	8	0.73
Rosenthal 1930		58	0.27	38	0.00	63	0.05	61	0.05	37	0.30	48	0.12
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.11	61	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	44	0.16	59	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.14	89	0.00	83	0.04	74	0.04	49	0.07	71	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		44	0.33	64	0.00	42	0.09	41	0.23	19	0.51	37	0.34
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.11	77	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	54	0.04	90	0.03
Rossi 2007		24	0.42	18	0.00	18	0.12	20	0.48	2	0.81	13	0.62
Rubinstein 1939		69	0.20	53	0.00	74	0.03	78	0.03	67	0.04	81	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		19	0.43	40	0.00	19	0.14	15	0.58	11	0.61	15	0.59
Rubinstein 1966		57	0.27	55	0.00	47	0.05	53	0.05	69	0.04	77	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		56	0.27	65	0.00	61	0.05	64	0.05	39	0.23	50	0.11
Shebanova 2002		14	0.47	27	0.00	16	0.12	14	0.60	35	0.44	19	0.51
Smith 1975		42	0.34	78	0.00	52	0.06	49	0.06	31	0.37	44	0.15
Sokolov 2002		35	0.36	79	0.00	43	0.08	43	0.15	26	0.39	41	0.24
Sztompka 1959		18	0.44	35	0.00	32	0.09	26	0.44	33	0.37	28	0.40
Tomsic 1995		66	0.22	57	0.00	72	0.04	73	0.04	83	0.03	83	0.03
Uninsky 1932		27	0.40	19	0.00	14	0.10	22	0.47	34	0.32	30	0.39
Uninsky 1971		48	0.30	20	0.00	49	0.06	50	0.06	56	0.06	60	0.06
Wasowski 1980		38	0.35	56	0.00	48	0.05	54	0.05	54	0.06	64	0.05
Zak 1937		62	0.25	86	0.00	54	0.05	60	0.05	54	0.06	65	0.05
Zak 1951		63	0.25	66	0.00	64	0.05	55	0.05	62	0.05	66	0.05
Average		2	0.61	2	0.31	2	0.46	1	0.86	19	0.45	14	0.62
Random 1		90	-0.02	90	0.00	88	0.02	90	0.02	46	0.05	89	0.03
Random 2		91	-0.08	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	79	0.03	91	0.02
Random 3		89	0.00	48	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	24	0.29	55	0.08

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).