Garcia 2007

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		75	0.19	52	0.00	65	0.04	64	0.04	85	0.02	74	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		27	0.30	11	0.01	16	0.11	16	0.44	74	0.03	23	0.11
Ashkenazy 1981		10	0.36	41	0.00	18	0.10	13	0.48	82	0.03	21	0.12
Bacha 2000		33	0.29	43	0.00	46	0.05	55	0.05	59	0.04	49	0.04
Badura 1965		84	0.10	55	0.00	83	0.03	72	0.03	85	0.02	86	0.02
Barbosa 1983		37	0.28	6	0.03	17	0.10	25	0.33	50	0.05	20	0.13
Biret 1990		44	0.27	38	0.00	57	0.05	54	0.05	88	0.02	78	0.03
Blet 2003		46	0.26	40	0.00	43	0.05	41	0.13	78	0.04	38	0.07
Block 1995		2	0.44	2	0.18	3	0.33	1	0.78	22	0.33	3	0.51
Blumental 1952		51	0.25	16	0.01	24	0.09	34	0.19	58	0.04	31	0.09
Boshniakovich 1969		1	0.44	3	0.14	2	0.36	2	0.76	27	0.36	2	0.52
Brailowsky 1960		21	0.33	31	0.00	31	0.07	31	0.23	80	0.03	33	0.08
Bunin 1987		35	0.29	63	0.00	51	0.05	58	0.05	70	0.04	54	0.04
Bunin 1987b		34	0.29	86	0.00	52	0.08	46	0.08	71	0.03	45	0.05
Chiu 1999		32	0.29	23	0.00	33	0.05	33	0.20	78	0.03	34	0.08
Cohen 1997		80	0.15	39	0.00	81	0.02	84	0.02	77	0.03	87	0.02
Cortot 1951		53	0.25	80	0.00	58	0.05	53	0.05	69	0.04	56	0.04
Csalog 1996		83	0.13	81	0.00	85	0.02	83	0.02	78	0.03	84	0.02
Czerny 1949		87	0.07	83	0.00	87	0.03	76	0.03	90	0.02	85	0.02
Czerny 1990		30	0.29	84	0.00	38	0.05	32	0.21	85	0.03	37	0.08
Duchoud 2007		23	0.31	61	0.00	34	0.06	29	0.27	83	0.03	29	0.09
Ezaki 2006		77	0.18	42	0.00	59	0.04	65	0.04	85	0.02	57	0.03
Falvay 1989		72	0.20	25	0.00	66	0.04	62	0.04	86	0.03	62	0.03
Farrell 1958		55	0.24	53	0.00	61	0.04	61	0.04	80	0.03	65	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		66	0.21	48	0.00	76	0.03	75	0.03	79	0.03	72	0.03
Fliere 1977		4	0.40	20	0.00	5	0.20	5	0.64	70	0.04	9	0.16
Fou 1978		57	0.24	74	0.00	70	0.03	68	0.03	85	0.03	66	0.03
Francois 1956		86	0.09	87	0.00	86	0.02	82	0.02	87	0.02	90	0.02
Friedman 1923		39	0.28	36	0.00	27	0.06	26	0.31	30	0.24	6	0.27
Friedman 1923b		29	0.30	45	0.00	26	0.06	22	0.35	25	0.29	5	0.32
Friedman 1930		59	0.24	65	0.00	41	0.05	40	0.13	47	0.06	28	0.09
Garcia 2007		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Garcia 2007b		3	0.43	1	0.37	1	0.36	3	0.74	2	0.73	1	0.73
Gierzod 1998		63	0.21	49	0.00	53	0.06	49	0.06	88	0.02	75	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		62	0.22	75	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	83	0.03	77	0.03
Groot 1988		36	0.29	15	0.01	32	0.06	37	0.17	81	0.02	44	0.06
Harasiewicz 1955		14	0.34	8	0.02	9	0.13	7	0.64	71	0.03	17	0.14
Hatto 1993		42	0.28	59	0.00	47	0.06	52	0.06	73	0.03	55	0.04
Hatto 1997		76	0.19	24	0.00	72	0.03	70	0.03	87	0.03	71	0.03
Horowitz 1949		43	0.28	35	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	81	0.03	46	0.05
Indjic 1988		47	0.26	66	0.00	48	0.06	48	0.06	72	0.03	53	0.04
Kapell 1951		26	0.30	33	0.00	36	0.07	35	0.19	72	0.04	27	0.09
Kissin 1993		65	0.21	88	0.00	71	0.03	73	0.03	75	0.04	70	0.03
Kushner 1989		22	0.32	50	0.00	19	0.12	21	0.40	76	0.03	22	0.11
Luisada 1991		8	0.37	60	0.00	22	0.08	17	0.43	64	0.05	13	0.15
Lushtak 2004		31	0.29	89	0.00	37	0.06	38	0.17	81	0.03	39	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		50	0.26	56	0.00	56	0.05	56	0.05	84	0.03	51	0.04
Magaloff 1978		41	0.28	17	0.01	30	0.08	30	0.24	73	0.03	35	0.08
Magin 1975		67	0.21	76	0.00	68	0.03	67	0.03	77	0.03	64	0.03
Michalowski 1933		17	0.33	57	0.00	12	0.08	9	0.63	60	0.04	10	0.16
Milkina 1970		82	0.14	18	0.01	67	0.03	78	0.03	83	0.03	67	0.03
Mohovich 1999		6	0.39	4	0.04	7	0.13	4	0.67	61	0.04	12	0.16
Moravec 1969		78	0.17	91	0.00	64	0.04	59	0.04	85	0.02	58	0.03
Morozova 2008		40	0.28	26	0.00	25	0.10	24	0.33	78	0.03	26	0.10
Neighaus 1950		13	0.34	32	0.00	23	0.11	18	0.43	87	0.02	32	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		28	0.30	7	0.02	4	0.26	14	0.47	15	0.35	4	0.41
Ohlsson 1999		61	0.23	37	0.00	39	0.05	42	0.13	86	0.03	41	0.06
Osinska 1989		56	0.24	69	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	82	0.03	60	0.03
Pachmann 1927		71	0.20	51	0.00	63	0.03	66	0.03	80	0.03	69	0.03
Paderewski 1930		52	0.25	58	0.00	54	0.06	50	0.06	59	0.04	47	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		20	0.33	12	0.01	15	0.10	11	0.57	76	0.03	18	0.13
Pierdomenico 2008		15	0.34	29	0.00	35	0.06	36	0.19	83	0.03	36	0.08
Poblocka 1999		19	0.33	21	0.00	20	0.09	19	0.42	78	0.04	19	0.13
Rabcewiczowa 1932		74	0.19	70	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.02	82	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		45	0.27	77	0.00	40	0.05	39	0.14	79	0.03	40	0.06
Rangell 2001		18	0.33	19	0.00	29	0.07	27	0.31	64	0.04	24	0.11
Richter 1976		9	0.37	14	0.01	8	0.12	10	0.62	46	0.07	7	0.21
Rosen 1989		16	0.33	30	0.00	28	0.06	28	0.29	73	0.03	30	0.09
Rosenthal 1930		73	0.20	71	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	77	0.03	76	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		79	0.15	90	0.00	77	0.02	85	0.02	86	0.02	83	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		60	0.23	62	0.00	62	0.04	63	0.04	68	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		70	0.20	34	0.00	73	0.03	74	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		69	0.20	44	0.00	78	0.02	86	0.02	76	0.03	88	0.02
Rossi 2007		85	0.10	72	0.00	82	0.03	71	0.03	62	0.03	61	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		88	0.07	67	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	73	0.03	81	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		81	0.14	78	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	81	0.03	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1966		38	0.28	10	0.01	44	0.06	43	0.11	78	0.03	42	0.06
Schilhawsky 1960		58	0.24	28	0.00	42	0.06	44	0.11	81	0.03	43	0.06
Shebanova 2002		12	0.35	9	0.02	21	0.08	15	0.45	57	0.06	11	0.16
Smith 1975		64	0.21	68	0.00	69	0.04	60	0.04	83	0.03	63	0.03
Sokolov 2002		54	0.25	46	0.00	50	0.05	57	0.05	81	0.03	50	0.04
Sztompka 1959		25	0.31	13	0.01	11	0.08	12	0.50	63	0.04	15	0.14
Tomsic 1995		48	0.26	85	0.00	49	0.06	51	0.06	86	0.02	68	0.03
Uninsky 1932		7	0.38	22	0.00	13	0.10	6	0.64	58	0.05	8	0.18
Uninsky 1971		49	0.26	73	0.00	55	0.06	47	0.06	81	0.03	52	0.04
Wasowski 1980		68	0.21	47	0.00	60	0.03	69	0.03	74	0.04	59	0.03
Zak 1937		11	0.35	27	0.00	10	0.15	20	0.41	50	0.05	14	0.14
Zak 1951		24	0.31	54	0.00	14	0.10	23	0.34	83	0.03	25	0.10
Average		5	0.40	5	0.03	6	0.16	8	0.63	85	0.03	16	0.14
Random 1		89	-0.05	82	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	36	0.13	48	0.05
Random 2		90	-0.07	64	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	61	0.04	73	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.12	79	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	86	0.02	91	0.01

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).