Ohlsson 1999

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		66	0.29	77	0.00	79	0.04	62	0.04	70	0.04	81	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		51	0.35	67	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.09	27	0.34	43	0.17
Ashkenazy 1981		16	0.47	71	0.00	16	0.10	12	0.61	30	0.53	14	0.57
Bacha 2000		78	0.23	35	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	39	0.21	60	0.10
Badura 1965		69	0.27	68	0.00	71	0.04	72	0.04	38	0.19	63	0.09
Barbosa 1983		59	0.32	56	0.00	50	0.05	51	0.05	35	0.26	57	0.11
Biret 1990		60	0.32	18	0.00	51	0.06	48	0.06	25	0.51	44	0.17
Blet 2003		23	0.43	59	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.16	33	0.40	36	0.25
Block 1995		15	0.48	23	0.00	6	0.12	8	0.64	10	0.66	8	0.65
Blumental 1952		79	0.22	70	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	47	0.07	75	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		47	0.37	46	0.00	35	0.06	37	0.14	32	0.34	39	0.22
Brailowsky 1960		56	0.33	25	0.00	56	0.05	54	0.05	24	0.50	45	0.16
Bunin 1987		68	0.29	78	0.00	78	0.05	55	0.05	67	0.05	76	0.05
Bunin 1987b		67	0.29	81	0.00	77	0.03	84	0.03	72	0.04	88	0.03
Chiu 1999		6	0.54	17	0.00	10	0.14	6	0.65	17	0.63	9	0.64
Cohen 1997		41	0.39	14	0.01	57	0.05	52	0.05	32	0.41	50	0.14
Cortot 1951		48	0.37	15	0.01	48	0.06	49	0.06	23	0.52	42	0.18
Csalog 1996		32	0.41	34	0.00	43	0.05	41	0.11	20	0.45	38	0.22
Czerny 1949		73	0.25	21	0.00	59	0.04	67	0.04	33	0.51	49	0.14
Czerny 1990		63	0.30	82	0.00	58	0.05	57	0.05	41	0.25	58	0.11
Duchoud 2007		28	0.42	9	0.02	25	0.12	27	0.32	29	0.38	30	0.35
Ezaki 2006		54	0.33	39	0.00	61	0.04	74	0.04	29	0.38	53	0.12
Falvay 1989		80	0.22	50	0.00	76	0.04	79	0.04	79	0.03	87	0.03
Farrell 1958		65	0.30	79	0.00	66	0.05	53	0.05	30	0.33	51	0.13
Ferenczy 1958		90	0.00	85	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	68	0.04	89	0.03
Fliere 1977		3	0.55	11	0.01	8	0.10	5	0.67	20	0.66	6	0.66
Fou 1978		30	0.41	3	0.06	17	0.10	18	0.45	15	0.48	22	0.46
Francois 1956		50	0.35	40	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	35	0.35	56	0.12
Friedman 1923		11	0.50	64	0.00	20	0.17	10	0.61	18	0.66	12	0.63
Friedman 1923b		13	0.50	43	0.00	19	0.10	9	0.62	18	0.66	10	0.64
Friedman 1930		8	0.54	51	0.00	9	0.10	7	0.64	13	0.66	7	0.65
Garcia 2007		82	0.20	37	0.00	70	0.05	60	0.05	49	0.06	74	0.05
Garcia 2007b		84	0.18	45	0.00	83	0.04	80	0.04	74	0.04	86	0.04
Gierzod 1998		81	0.20	36	0.00	73	0.03	83	0.03	49	0.07	73	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		31	0.41	38	0.00	46	0.04	75	0.04	33	0.35	55	0.12
Groot 1988		37	0.39	61	0.00	41	0.05	43	0.10	45	0.13	59	0.11
Harasiewicz 1955		9	0.52	58	0.00	15	0.11	13	0.60	7	0.59	13	0.59
Hatto 1993		19	0.44	22	0.00	14	0.12	24	0.37	27	0.41	28	0.39
Hatto 1997		55	0.33	72	0.00	49	0.05	59	0.05	43	0.13	65	0.08
Horowitz 1949		46	0.37	73	0.00	52	0.07	46	0.07	41	0.25	52	0.13
Indjic 1988		35	0.40	28	0.00	26	0.12	30	0.31	27	0.39	29	0.35
Kapell 1951		64	0.30	52	0.00	54	0.04	63	0.04	48	0.08	68	0.06
Kissin 1993		49	0.36	54	0.00	32	0.08	29	0.31	26	0.52	27	0.40
Kushner 1989		38	0.39	62	0.00	53	0.04	68	0.04	50	0.07	72	0.05
Luisada 1991		57	0.33	86	0.00	69	0.04	66	0.04	66	0.05	77	0.04
Lushtak 2004		70	0.26	87	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	71	0.04	69	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		40	0.39	47	0.00	33	0.10	32	0.28	26	0.34	32	0.31
Magaloff 1978		7	0.54	5	0.05	4	0.24	4	0.68	4	0.76	2	0.72
Magin 1975		14	0.49	19	0.00	13	0.12	16	0.56	14	0.72	11	0.63
Michalowski 1933		27	0.42	41	0.00	31	0.08	34	0.22	29	0.40	34	0.30
Milkina 1970		71	0.25	24	0.00	68	0.05	58	0.05	45	0.14	64	0.08
Mohovich 1999		74	0.25	74	0.00	82	0.04	64	0.04	72	0.04	82	0.04
Moravec 1969		36	0.39	27	0.00	21	0.11	21	0.42	10	0.59	19	0.50
Morozova 2008		39	0.39	57	0.00	42	0.05	40	0.11	34	0.22	46	0.16
Neighaus 1950		2	0.56	2	0.06	2	0.24	14	0.59	9	0.53	16	0.56
Niedzielski 1931		20	0.44	48	0.00	24	0.10	23	0.37	24	0.44	26	0.40
Ohlsson 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Osinska 1989		29	0.41	6	0.03	30	0.12	26	0.34	18	0.58	24	0.44
Pachmann 1927		12	0.50	10	0.01	5	0.12	11	0.61	10	0.73	5	0.67
Paderewski 1930		42	0.38	29	0.00	40	0.05	42	0.11	27	0.46	37	0.22
Perlemuter 1992		17	0.46	12	0.01	22	0.10	28	0.32	21	0.60	23	0.44
Pierdomenico 2008		44	0.37	16	0.01	23	0.10	25	0.36	12	0.60	21	0.46
Poblocka 1999		58	0.33	60	0.00	67	0.06	47	0.06	74	0.04	70	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		72	0.25	88	0.00	81	0.03	85	0.03	51	0.07	71	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		43	0.37	53	0.00	39	0.06	39	0.13	32	0.30	40	0.20
Rangell 2001		76	0.25	63	0.00	72	0.04	78	0.04	58	0.05	83	0.04
Richter 1976		4	0.55	8	0.02	7	0.10	3	0.69	21	0.73	3	0.71
Rosen 1989		18	0.46	32	0.00	27	0.10	22	0.41	27	0.46	25	0.43
Rosenthal 1930		61	0.32	44	0.00	64	0.04	70	0.04	42	0.15	66	0.08
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.11	83	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	55	0.05	79	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.10	89	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	65	0.04	90	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		77	0.24	90	0.00	80	0.04	71	0.04	55	0.05	85	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.09	80	0.00	85	0.04	77	0.04	55	0.04	84	0.04
Rossi 2007		83	0.19	65	0.00	84	0.04	76	0.04	29	0.25	61	0.10
Rubinstein 1939		22	0.44	7	0.02	18	0.10	20	0.44	6	0.61	18	0.52
Rubinstein 1952		24	0.43	26	0.00	28	0.14	19	0.45	9	0.62	17	0.53
Rubinstein 1966		62	0.31	42	0.00	65	0.04	61	0.04	71	0.04	80	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		45	0.37	20	0.00	34	0.08	33	0.22	12	0.54	31	0.34
Shebanova 2002		10	0.51	13	0.01	12	0.12	15	0.58	30	0.54	15	0.56
Smith 1975		33	0.40	30	0.00	47	0.04	69	0.04	21	0.48	47	0.14
Sokolov 2002		25	0.43	55	0.00	37	0.05	38	0.14	21	0.43	35	0.25
Sztompka 1959		34	0.40	69	0.00	36	0.06	35	0.18	42	0.22	41	0.20
Tomsic 1995		75	0.25	84	0.00	74	0.03	82	0.03	62	0.05	78	0.04
Uninsky 1932		21	0.44	31	0.00	11	0.10	17	0.54	26	0.41	20	0.47
Uninsky 1971		26	0.42	75	0.00	29	0.09	31	0.30	27	0.32	33	0.31
Wasowski 1980		5	0.55	4	0.06	3	0.27	2	0.71	5	0.73	1	0.72
Zak 1937		53	0.33	33	0.00	60	0.04	73	0.04	36	0.25	62	0.10
Zak 1951		52	0.34	76	0.00	63	0.06	50	0.06	34	0.32	48	0.14
Average		1	0.68	1	0.56	1	0.56	1	0.84	12	0.56	4	0.69
Random 1		89	0.06	91	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	29	0.26	67	0.07
Random 2		91	-0.12	66	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01
Random 3		88	0.06	49	0.00	89	0.03	87	0.03	10	0.50	54	0.12

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).