Chiu 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		26	0.47	34	0.00	39	0.07	35	0.24	54	0.05	42	0.11
Anderszewski 2003		81	0.27	82	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	84	0.02	88	0.02
Ashkenazy 1981		17	0.53	13	0.01	16	0.12	16	0.51	28	0.31	20	0.40
Bacha 2000		32	0.45	39	0.00	32	0.09	30	0.37	4	0.58	17	0.46
Badura 1965		74	0.32	70	0.00	73	0.03	82	0.03	64	0.04	82	0.03
Barbosa 1983		5	0.59	12	0.03	8	0.15	5	0.66	3	0.63	4	0.64
Biret 1990		22	0.49	43	0.00	19	0.16	17	0.48	8	0.56	12	0.52
Blet 2003		16	0.53	37	0.00	36	0.10	31	0.33	35	0.23	32	0.28
Block 1995		68	0.34	38	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	62	0.04	83	0.03
Blumental 1952		61	0.37	31	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.07	32	0.21	41	0.12
Boshniakovich 1969		43	0.42	63	0.00	51	0.04	74	0.04	45	0.11	54	0.07
Brailowsky 1960		41	0.43	83	0.00	54	0.04	61	0.04	31	0.24	45	0.10
Bunin 1987		48	0.42	30	0.00	52	0.04	71	0.04	58	0.05	75	0.04
Bunin 1987b		47	0.42	42	0.00	50	0.04	69	0.04	57	0.05	68	0.04
Chiu 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Cohen 1997		69	0.34	66	0.00	70	0.03	83	0.03	40	0.14	57	0.06
Cortot 1951		79	0.29	52	0.00	86	0.04	68	0.04	83	0.03	85	0.03
Csalog 1996		49	0.42	27	0.00	37	0.07	37	0.20	14	0.50	28	0.32
Czerny 1949		73	0.32	64	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	67	0.03	80	0.03
Czerny 1990		21	0.50	24	0.00	24	0.09	19	0.48	34	0.21	29	0.32
Duchoud 2007		18	0.52	5	0.05	11	0.11	8	0.63	3	0.62	6	0.62
Ezaki 2006		44	0.42	75	0.00	57	0.05	56	0.05	70	0.03	63	0.04
Falvay 1989		14	0.53	79	0.00	31	0.13	22	0.43	31	0.20	31	0.29
Farrell 1958		29	0.46	36	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.17	13	0.44	33	0.27
Ferenczy 1958		88	0.16	50	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	74	0.03	89	0.02
Fliere 1977		3	0.62	9	0.04	3	0.16	3	0.69	8	0.61	3	0.65
Fou 1978		9	0.57	22	0.00	13	0.15	11	0.58	16	0.45	13	0.51
Francois 1956		66	0.35	76	0.00	60	0.04	63	0.04	62	0.04	78	0.04
Friedman 1923		80	0.29	35	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	27	0.28	50	0.09
Friedman 1923b		76	0.30	40	0.00	77	0.04	59	0.04	28	0.27	47	0.10
Friedman 1930		63	0.37	19	0.01	66	0.05	48	0.05	45	0.08	56	0.06
Garcia 2007		78	0.29	44	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	33	0.20	53	0.08
Garcia 2007b		67	0.34	71	0.00	71	0.03	84	0.03	19	0.39	44	0.11
Gierzod 1998		70	0.34	68	0.00	67	0.06	47	0.06	72	0.03	74	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		50	0.41	48	0.00	65	0.06	46	0.06	51	0.05	62	0.05
Groot 1988		27	0.47	59	0.00	21	0.08	23	0.42	35	0.23	30	0.31
Harasiewicz 1955		25	0.48	25	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.13	53	0.04	55	0.07
Hatto 1993		39	0.43	51	0.00	25	0.07	29	0.37	17	0.36	25	0.36
Hatto 1997		57	0.38	69	0.00	28	0.08	34	0.24	30	0.23	35	0.23
Horowitz 1949		23	0.49	11	0.03	15	0.10	15	0.51	9	0.49	14	0.50
Indjic 1988		53	0.41	60	0.00	20	0.09	28	0.39	20	0.34	24	0.36
Kapell 1951		59	0.38	28	0.00	63	0.04	57	0.04	61	0.04	67	0.04
Kissin 1993		24	0.48	54	0.00	30	0.10	20	0.44	33	0.28	27	0.35
Kushner 1989		20	0.50	20	0.01	35	0.08	33	0.28	43	0.13	36	0.19
Luisada 1991		13	0.54	26	0.00	18	0.15	14	0.53	13	0.44	15	0.48
Lushtak 2004		19	0.52	18	0.01	34	0.07	32	0.29	59	0.04	43	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		40	0.43	53	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.15	68	0.04	52	0.08
Magaloff 1978		34	0.44	23	0.00	17	0.12	18	0.48	26	0.25	26	0.35
Magin 1975		56	0.39	77	0.00	40	0.07	42	0.15	43	0.12	40	0.13
Michalowski 1933		65	0.35	29	0.00	55	0.05	53	0.05	41	0.17	49	0.09
Milkina 1970		45	0.42	72	0.00	26	0.07	26	0.40	17	0.37	23	0.38
Mohovich 1999		28	0.46	87	0.00	47	0.04	70	0.04	47	0.06	61	0.05
Moravec 1969		58	0.38	46	0.00	33	0.08	38	0.20	40	0.12	37	0.15
Morozova 2008		6	0.58	4	0.07	7	0.12	7	0.65	7	0.46	9	0.55
Neighaus 1950		10	0.55	8	0.04	10	0.17	9	0.62	18	0.46	10	0.53
Niedzielski 1931		71	0.33	21	0.00	46	0.04	73	0.04	26	0.20	48	0.09
Ohlsson 1999		12	0.55	10	0.04	6	0.15	6	0.65	6	0.51	7	0.58
Osinska 1989		42	0.43	65	0.00	58	0.05	54	0.05	57	0.05	59	0.05
Pachmann 1927		8	0.57	3	0.07	5	0.15	4	0.66	2	0.70	1	0.68
Paderewski 1930		75	0.31	88	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	74	0.03	79	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		33	0.45	78	0.00	59	0.05	50	0.05	51	0.05	58	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		15	0.53	32	0.00	29	0.09	24	0.41	6	0.55	16	0.47
Poblocka 1999		54	0.40	45	0.00	38	0.07	39	0.18	61	0.04	51	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		72	0.33	49	0.00	74	0.04	72	0.04	67	0.04	66	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		38	0.43	14	0.01	23	0.07	21	0.44	21	0.38	18	0.41
Rangell 2001		37	0.43	55	0.00	27	0.07	25	0.40	12	0.43	19	0.41
Richter 1976		31	0.46	15	0.01	22	0.09	40	0.18	44	0.12	38	0.15
Rosen 1989		11	0.55	16	0.01	14	0.13	13	0.54	11	0.51	11	0.52
Rosenthal 1930		86	0.23	80	0.00	84	0.03	86	0.03	79	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.24	84	0.00	85	0.04	58	0.04	60	0.04	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.25	85	0.00	81	0.04	76	0.04	55	0.05	77	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		83	0.25	61	0.00	82	0.03	77	0.03	82	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.22	89	0.00	80	0.04	60	0.04	56	0.04	76	0.04
Rossi 2007		85	0.23	90	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.02	87	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		77	0.29	17	0.01	61	0.04	64	0.04	11	0.43	39	0.13
Rubinstein 1952		51	0.41	67	0.00	41	0.08	36	0.20	24	0.36	34	0.27
Rubinstein 1966		52	0.41	57	0.00	56	0.05	49	0.05	37	0.21	46	0.10
Schilhawsky 1960		46	0.42	47	0.00	53	0.04	62	0.04	48	0.06	60	0.05
Shebanova 2002		1	0.65	2	0.10	2	0.24	2	0.76	6	0.61	2	0.68
Smith 1975		35	0.44	86	0.00	64	0.05	55	0.05	78	0.03	65	0.04
Sokolov 2002		64	0.36	73	0.00	68	0.05	51	0.05	67	0.03	64	0.04
Sztompka 1959		60	0.37	58	0.00	72	0.04	67	0.04	59	0.05	70	0.04
Tomsic 1995		55	0.39	74	0.00	49	0.04	75	0.04	63	0.04	69	0.04
Uninsky 1932		36	0.44	62	0.00	48	0.04	66	0.04	76	0.04	73	0.04
Uninsky 1971		62	0.37	41	0.00	69	0.05	52	0.05	60	0.04	71	0.04
Wasowski 1980		30	0.46	7	0.04	9	0.17	27	0.39	14	0.40	21	0.39
Zak 1937		4	0.59	6	0.04	4	0.13	10	0.61	4	0.63	5	0.62
Zak 1951		7	0.57	33	0.00	12	0.17	12	0.56	7	0.57	8	0.56
Average		2	0.64	1	0.31	1	0.31	1	0.79	38	0.19	22	0.39
Random 1		89	0.02	56	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	42	0.09	84	0.03
Random 2		91	-0.03	81	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	57	0.04	90	0.02
Random 3		90	0.00	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	64	0.03	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).