Biret 1990

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		20	0.55	23	0.00	33	0.07	31	0.24	59	0.04	43	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		63	0.42	68	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	46	0.04	63	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		29	0.52	46	0.00	29	0.08	29	0.36	50	0.05	38	0.13
Bacha 2000		35	0.51	41	0.00	49	0.07	46	0.07	20	0.45	37	0.18
Badura 1965		81	0.28	71	0.00	74	0.04	72	0.04	71	0.04	68	0.04
Barbosa 1983		49	0.46	55	0.00	24	0.10	25	0.39	24	0.42	20	0.40
Biret 1990		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Blet 2003		37	0.50	45	0.00	39	0.07	43	0.15	54	0.05	46	0.09
Block 1995		70	0.36	73	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	57	0.04	81	0.03
Blumental 1952		77	0.32	74	0.00	67	0.04	74	0.04	59	0.04	69	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		54	0.44	43	0.00	72	0.04	67	0.04	83	0.03	82	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		44	0.47	61	0.00	66	0.06	48	0.06	71	0.04	52	0.05
Bunin 1987		33	0.51	77	0.00	41	0.08	34	0.23	55	0.06	41	0.12
Bunin 1987b		31	0.52	60	0.00	40	0.06	33	0.24	54	0.06	40	0.12
Chiu 1999		39	0.49	2	0.06	8	0.12	8	0.56	17	0.48	6	0.52
Cohen 1997		60	0.42	15	0.01	43	0.06	41	0.15	11	0.48	28	0.27
Cortot 1951		41	0.48	49	0.00	44	0.07	42	0.15	33	0.25	36	0.19
Csalog 1996		18	0.55	14	0.01	23	0.11	27	0.38	10	0.53	14	0.45
Czerny 1949		12	0.59	30	0.00	22	0.11	12	0.51	17	0.53	7	0.52
Czerny 1990		34	0.51	50	0.00	57	0.04	75	0.04	74	0.04	71	0.04
Duchoud 2007		4	0.66	18	0.01	4	0.26	3	0.69	2	0.65	2	0.67
Ezaki 2006		16	0.57	8	0.03	10	0.10	20	0.46	36	0.15	29	0.26
Falvay 1989		30	0.52	28	0.00	15	0.07	28	0.36	29	0.21	27	0.27
Farrell 1958		5	0.64	20	0.01	9	0.10	14	0.50	3	0.68	4	0.58
Ferenczy 1958		51	0.46	67	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.13	27	0.29	35	0.19
Fliere 1977		27	0.52	75	0.00	52	0.04	61	0.04	73	0.04	56	0.04
Fou 1978		58	0.42	78	0.00	55	0.04	65	0.04	67	0.04	58	0.04
Francois 1956		17	0.56	12	0.01	18	0.12	6	0.57	19	0.38	12	0.47
Friedman 1923		88	0.16	79	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	59	0.05	73	0.04
Friedman 1923b		87	0.17	47	0.00	85	0.03	78	0.03	51	0.06	70	0.04
Friedman 1930		82	0.28	72	0.00	71	0.04	58	0.04	67	0.04	65	0.04
Garcia 2007		83	0.27	44	0.00	79	0.02	88	0.02	54	0.05	80	0.03
Garcia 2007b		79	0.32	16	0.01	73	0.04	70	0.04	27	0.26	44	0.10
Gierzod 1998		62	0.42	84	0.00	60	0.04	55	0.04	73	0.03	79	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		6	0.63	4	0.05	21	0.11	23	0.42	21	0.35	22	0.38
Groot 1988		45	0.47	80	0.00	69	0.04	53	0.04	79	0.03	84	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		71	0.36	37	0.00	37	0.05	32	0.24	74	0.03	48	0.08
Hatto 1993		68	0.39	42	0.00	34	0.06	40	0.16	25	0.29	32	0.22
Hatto 1997		22	0.55	5	0.04	5	0.16	5	0.63	10	0.49	5	0.56
Horowitz 1949		56	0.43	51	0.00	61	0.04	57	0.04	60	0.04	60	0.04
Indjic 1988		55	0.43	52	0.00	27	0.07	36	0.22	18	0.36	26	0.28
Kapell 1951		8	0.61	53	0.00	19	0.09	10	0.53	24	0.43	11	0.48
Kissin 1993		64	0.42	85	0.00	59	0.04	60	0.04	55	0.05	62	0.04
Kushner 1989		24	0.53	56	0.00	54	0.04	63	0.04	53	0.04	59	0.04
Luisada 1991		14	0.58	9	0.03	13	0.10	11	0.52	21	0.34	16	0.42
Lushtak 2004		38	0.50	19	0.01	11	0.11	13	0.50	29	0.33	18	0.41
Malcuzynski 1961		28	0.52	86	0.00	53	0.04	62	0.04	79	0.03	77	0.03
Magaloff 1978		25	0.52	69	0.00	36	0.06	44	0.13	80	0.03	51	0.06
Magin 1975		74	0.35	57	0.00	63	0.04	76	0.04	72	0.03	76	0.03
Michalowski 1933		69	0.37	63	0.00	42	0.06	37	0.18	36	0.26	31	0.22
Milkina 1970		19	0.55	6	0.04	14	0.10	15	0.47	12	0.44	13	0.45
Mohovich 1999		52	0.45	87	0.00	68	0.04	66	0.04	80	0.03	83	0.03
Moravec 1969		47	0.47	81	0.00	35	0.05	39	0.16	51	0.05	45	0.09
Morozova 2008		48	0.46	88	0.00	38	0.05	38	0.18	73	0.03	49	0.07
Neighaus 1950		7	0.62	25	0.00	7	0.13	7	0.56	28	0.36	15	0.45
Niedzielski 1931		73	0.35	33	0.00	82	0.03	79	0.03	69	0.03	75	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		3	0.67	7	0.04	3	0.18	4	0.66	4	0.53	3	0.59
Osinska 1989		2	0.69	1	0.48	1	0.47	1	0.78	4	0.77	1	0.77
Pachmann 1927		72	0.36	39	0.00	65	0.05	51	0.05	59	0.05	54	0.05
Paderewski 1930		66	0.40	38	0.00	70	0.04	59	0.04	71	0.03	78	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		80	0.30	89	0.00	77	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.03	87	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		46	0.47	32	0.00	47	0.06	49	0.06	30	0.22	42	0.11
Poblocka 1999		9	0.61	64	0.00	20	0.10	19	0.46	20	0.34	19	0.40
Rabcewiczowa 1932		13	0.58	11	0.02	12	0.10	16	0.47	14	0.56	8	0.51
Rachmaninoff 1923		59	0.42	26	0.00	50	0.04	56	0.04	49	0.05	57	0.04
Rangell 2001		23	0.54	31	0.00	32	0.07	35	0.23	40	0.18	34	0.20
Richter 1976		78	0.32	54	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	88	0.02	88	0.02
Rosen 1989		15	0.57	34	0.00	31	0.10	24	0.41	28	0.31	23	0.36
Rosenthal 1930		67	0.40	58	0.00	76	0.04	77	0.04	65	0.04	67	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.21	90	0.00	88	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.24	65	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	65	0.04	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		75	0.33	66	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	73	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		76	0.33	76	0.00	83	0.04	73	0.04	59	0.04	72	0.04
Rossi 2007		84	0.25	40	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	60	0.03	74	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		65	0.40	35	0.00	64	0.04	71	0.04	21	0.38	39	0.12
Rubinstein 1952		53	0.45	22	0.00	56	0.04	64	0.04	44	0.12	50	0.07
Rubinstein 1966		43	0.48	82	0.00	58	0.04	69	0.04	65	0.05	64	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		50	0.46	59	0.00	30	0.09	30	0.26	32	0.24	30	0.25
Shebanova 2002		40	0.49	24	0.00	51	0.05	52	0.05	50	0.06	55	0.05
Smith 1975		11	0.59	10	0.02	6	0.13	9	0.54	14	0.43	10	0.48
Sokolov 2002		10	0.60	48	0.00	28	0.07	21	0.45	37	0.26	24	0.34
Sztompka 1959		61	0.42	83	0.00	75	0.04	54	0.04	76	0.04	61	0.04
Tomsic 1995		36	0.50	62	0.00	46	0.06	47	0.06	71	0.04	53	0.05
Uninsky 1932		57	0.43	21	0.01	62	0.04	68	0.04	49	0.05	66	0.04
Uninsky 1971		21	0.55	17	0.01	25	0.10	26	0.38	35	0.28	25	0.33
Wasowski 1980		26	0.52	29	0.00	26	0.09	22	0.44	5	0.52	9	0.48
Zak 1937		32	0.52	27	0.00	17	0.11	18	0.46	19	0.39	17	0.42
Zak 1951		42	0.48	13	0.01	16	0.10	17	0.46	26	0.33	21	0.39
Average		1	0.71	3	0.06	2	0.23	2	0.74	47	0.06	33	0.21
Random 1		90	0.00	36	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	54	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		91	0.00	70	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	12	0.37	47	0.09
Random 3		89	0.02	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	47	0.05	91	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).