Pierdomenico 2008

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		68	0.20	87	0.00	53	0.07	48	0.07	66	0.04	61	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		89	0.01	68	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.03	89	0.02
Ashkenazy 1981		25	0.37	74	0.00	27	0.09	21	0.43	62	0.06	30	0.16
Bacha 2000		71	0.18	44	0.00	66	0.03	72	0.03	59	0.05	62	0.04
Badura 1965		75	0.15	75	0.00	77	0.03	75	0.03	83	0.03	81	0.03
Barbosa 1983		73	0.16	88	0.00	69	0.03	69	0.03	80	0.03	78	0.03
Biret 1990		57	0.26	40	0.00	59	0.06	50	0.06	41	0.20	40	0.11
Blet 2003		51	0.27	18	0.01	55	0.05	56	0.05	63	0.05	60	0.05
Block 1995		10	0.45	7	0.04	4	0.14	9	0.61	23	0.48	7	0.54
Blumental 1952		78	0.12	89	0.00	67	0.03	71	0.03	59	0.05	71	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		34	0.33	47	0.00	50	0.07	47	0.07	67	0.05	55	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		81	0.09	90	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	84	0.03	85	0.02
Bunin 1987		49	0.28	33	0.00	33	0.06	38	0.18	46	0.09	34	0.13
Bunin 1987b		48	0.28	16	0.01	32	0.06	37	0.19	51	0.07	35	0.12
Chiu 1999		9	0.46	6	0.04	5	0.18	5	0.69	23	0.50	3	0.59
Cohen 1997		58	0.25	59	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.10	48	0.07	50	0.08
Cortot 1951		46	0.29	43	0.00	51	0.06	51	0.06	39	0.21	41	0.11
Csalog 1996		29	0.35	45	0.00	46	0.05	57	0.05	42	0.17	45	0.09
Czerny 1949		80	0.10	54	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	71	0.04	79	0.03
Czerny 1990		43	0.30	46	0.00	42	0.07	41	0.16	45	0.14	31	0.15
Duchoud 2007		15	0.40	28	0.00	18	0.10	17	0.51	34	0.28	16	0.38
Ezaki 2006		76	0.14	55	0.00	81	0.03	76	0.03	70	0.04	76	0.03
Falvay 1989		52	0.27	23	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.15	57	0.05	44	0.09
Farrell 1958		67	0.22	91	0.00	63	0.04	63	0.04	51	0.06	59	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		82	0.09	51	0.00	82	0.02	83	0.02	52	0.07	68	0.04
Fliere 1977		4	0.49	19	0.01	10	0.16	6	0.68	38	0.44	6	0.55
Fou 1978		44	0.30	82	0.00	56	0.05	55	0.05	75	0.03	65	0.04
Francois 1956		70	0.19	69	0.00	71	0.04	66	0.04	57	0.05	75	0.04
Friedman 1923		18	0.39	13	0.02	24	0.13	27	0.32	52	0.09	28	0.17
Friedman 1923b		14	0.41	22	0.01	23	0.13	22	0.42	45	0.21	21	0.30
Friedman 1930		21	0.38	41	0.00	31	0.07	35	0.23	45	0.15	26	0.19
Garcia 2007		17	0.39	29	0.00	21	0.08	25	0.37	38	0.24	20	0.30
Garcia 2007b		19	0.39	12	0.02	9	0.15	16	0.53	19	0.55	8	0.54
Gierzod 1998		86	0.09	31	0.00	73	0.04	68	0.04	68	0.04	69	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		62	0.24	53	0.00	72	0.04	67	0.04	64	0.04	72	0.04
Groot 1988		23	0.37	71	0.00	36	0.06	33	0.25	57	0.06	38	0.12
Harasiewicz 1955		28	0.36	60	0.00	29	0.08	23	0.39	59	0.05	32	0.14
Hatto 1993		20	0.38	34	0.00	16	0.10	14	0.59	42	0.21	18	0.35
Hatto 1997		35	0.32	80	0.00	35	0.07	29	0.30	52	0.06	33	0.13
Horowitz 1949		16	0.39	15	0.01	14	0.12	18	0.50	33	0.40	15	0.45
Indjic 1988		30	0.35	56	0.00	25	0.11	19	0.49	44	0.19	19	0.31
Kapell 1951		26	0.36	78	0.00	38	0.11	31	0.26	73	0.05	39	0.11
Kissin 1993		27	0.36	58	0.00	17	0.08	15	0.54	33	0.46	12	0.50
Kushner 1989		33	0.34	10	0.02	28	0.10	28	0.32	42	0.19	24	0.25
Luisada 1991		31	0.34	48	0.00	47	0.06	53	0.06	71	0.04	56	0.05
Lushtak 2004		59	0.25	35	0.00	62	0.04	62	0.04	61	0.05	70	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		22	0.37	20	0.01	34	0.07	30	0.30	63	0.05	36	0.12
Magaloff 1978		12	0.42	17	0.01	13	0.12	13	0.60	28	0.42	10	0.50
Magin 1975		47	0.29	52	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.13	52	0.08	42	0.10
Michalowski 1933		36	0.32	76	0.00	49	0.06	52	0.06	55	0.07	54	0.06
Milkina 1970		79	0.11	3	0.07	19	0.07	34	0.25	35	0.30	23	0.27
Mohovich 1999		65	0.23	38	0.00	68	0.03	70	0.03	73	0.03	82	0.03
Moravec 1969		39	0.31	9	0.02	20	0.11	24	0.37	34	0.22	22	0.29
Morozova 2008		53	0.27	83	0.00	37	0.07	32	0.25	48	0.06	37	0.12
Neighaus 1950		13	0.42	32	0.00	22	0.09	20	0.46	53	0.07	27	0.18
Niedzielski 1931		42	0.30	30	0.00	54	0.06	49	0.06	75	0.04	58	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		24	0.37	5	0.06	6	0.15	12	0.60	25	0.36	14	0.46
Osinska 1989		32	0.34	70	0.00	48	0.05	59	0.05	45	0.10	51	0.07
Pachmann 1927		6	0.48	2	0.16	2	0.17	3	0.72	12	0.72	1	0.72
Paderewski 1930		38	0.31	21	0.01	26	0.07	26	0.37	34	0.35	17	0.36
Perlemuter 1992		45	0.30	49	0.00	57	0.05	58	0.05	74	0.04	63	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Poblocka 1999		63	0.24	25	0.00	39	0.07	39	0.18	71	0.04	47	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		64	0.24	50	0.00	75	0.03	73	0.03	62	0.05	64	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		41	0.30	79	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.17	40	0.16	29	0.16
Rangell 2001		56	0.26	62	0.00	64	0.04	64	0.04	77	0.04	73	0.04
Richter 1976		3	0.49	57	0.00	11	0.12	8	0.63	34	0.53	4	0.58
Rosen 1989		7	0.47	14	0.01	12	0.15	10	0.61	30	0.43	9	0.51
Rosenthal 1930		66	0.23	63	0.00	74	0.03	74	0.03	68	0.04	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		90	0.00	67	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	86	0.02	88	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.05	77	0.00	90	0.02	86	0.02	84	0.02	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.19	24	0.00	76	0.04	65	0.04	67	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.09	84	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.03
Rossi 2007		74	0.15	42	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	32	0.24	48	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		84	0.09	85	0.00	70	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03	77	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		60	0.25	72	0.00	58	0.05	54	0.05	73	0.04	74	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		50	0.28	61	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	55	0.05	52	0.07
Schilhawsky 1960		77	0.13	81	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	50	0.06	67	0.04
Shebanova 2002		2	0.51	1	0.27	1	0.26	1	0.76	25	0.60	2	0.68
Smith 1975		55	0.26	36	0.00	60	0.05	60	0.05	52	0.06	57	0.05
Sokolov 2002		37	0.31	86	0.00	30	0.07	36	0.21	52	0.04	43	0.09
Sztompka 1959		11	0.44	27	0.00	15	0.10	7	0.63	32	0.39	11	0.50
Tomsic 1995		61	0.25	39	0.00	65	0.03	78	0.03	85	0.02	86	0.02
Uninsky 1932		5	0.49	11	0.02	7	0.17	4	0.70	22	0.45	5	0.56
Uninsky 1971		72	0.16	64	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.02	87	0.02
Wasowski 1980		8	0.46	8	0.04	8	0.11	11	0.61	36	0.40	13	0.49
Zak 1937		40	0.31	37	0.00	52	0.07	46	0.07	59	0.06	53	0.06
Zak 1951		54	0.26	65	0.00	61	0.04	61	0.04	70	0.04	66	0.04
Average		1	0.54	4	0.07	3	0.16	2	0.73	60	0.05	25	0.19
Random 1		88	0.01	26	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	18	0.35	49	0.08
Random 2		91	-0.08	73	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		83	0.09	66	0.00	88	0.02	90	0.02	13	0.44	46	0.09

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).