Gornostaeva 1994

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		17	0.64	18	0.01	15	0.11	19	0.40	16	0.43	17	0.41
Anderszewski 2003		50	0.49	22	0.00	55	0.04	66	0.04	28	0.25	50	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		58	0.46	76	0.00	67	0.04	55	0.04	74	0.04	77	0.04
Bacha 2000		69	0.43	54	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	66	0.03	78	0.03
Badura 1965		68	0.44	82	0.00	58	0.04	63	0.04	29	0.27	52	0.10
Barbosa 1983		64	0.44	83	0.00	54	0.03	70	0.03	44	0.11	61	0.06
Biret 1990		18	0.63	11	0.02	18	0.07	21	0.35	23	0.42	23	0.38
Blet 2003		56	0.48	43	0.00	63	0.04	62	0.04	42	0.13	56	0.07
Block 1995		21	0.60	47	0.00	27	0.08	25	0.32	12	0.44	22	0.38
Blumental 1952		82	0.27	41	0.00	85	0.03	76	0.03	72	0.03	86	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		20	0.61	27	0.00	20	0.07	20	0.39	16	0.52	14	0.45
Brailowsky 1960		30	0.57	42	0.00	34	0.07	38	0.17	30	0.26	40	0.21
Bunin 1987		41	0.53	57	0.00	52	0.04	56	0.04	50	0.06	69	0.05
Bunin 1987b		40	0.53	51	0.00	53	0.07	46	0.07	51	0.06	59	0.06
Chiu 1999		74	0.41	88	0.00	60	0.05	51	0.05	46	0.06	65	0.05
Cohen 1997		78	0.33	7	0.04	21	0.07	44	0.12	34	0.20	45	0.15
Cortot 1951		49	0.50	33	0.00	46	0.04	61	0.04	38	0.19	54	0.09
Csalog 1996		73	0.41	52	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	54	0.06	74	0.04
Czerny 1949		10	0.69	9	0.03	6	0.14	7	0.61	9	0.66	4	0.63
Czerny 1990		19	0.61	48	0.00	38	0.07	35	0.21	27	0.25	37	0.23
Duchoud 2007		38	0.54	34	0.00	47	0.05	47	0.05	37	0.20	51	0.10
Ezaki 2006		8	0.71	13	0.01	10	0.19	6	0.61	10	0.52	8	0.56
Falvay 1989		26	0.58	29	0.00	32	0.08	29	0.26	27	0.23	35	0.24
Farrell 1958		39	0.54	58	0.00	22	0.05	34	0.22	24	0.33	31	0.27
Ferenczy 1958		67	0.44	50	0.00	79	0.03	71	0.03	47	0.07	68	0.05
Fliere 1977		16	0.66	24	0.00	23	0.09	18	0.41	26	0.28	25	0.34
Fou 1978		33	0.55	38	0.00	17	0.08	15	0.42	25	0.38	19	0.40
Francois 1956		7	0.71	1	0.18	1	0.17	8	0.60	7	0.56	7	0.58
Friedman 1923		87	0.16	89	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	37	0.14	63	0.06
Friedman 1923b		88	0.16	84	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	40	0.12	62	0.06
Friedman 1930		77	0.36	31	0.00	64	0.04	52	0.04	31	0.29	48	0.11
Garcia 2007		83	0.22	77	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.03
Garcia 2007b		86	0.19	90	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	80	0.02	91	0.02
Gierzod 1998		25	0.58	53	0.00	37	0.08	33	0.23	24	0.24	36	0.23
Gornostaeva 1994		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Groot 1988		12	0.68	45	0.00	11	0.15	13	0.50	12	0.48	13	0.49
Harasiewicz 1955		42	0.53	17	0.01	12	0.13	14	0.44	12	0.39	18	0.41
Hatto 1993		84	0.22	73	0.00	83	0.02	84	0.02	82	0.03	90	0.02
Hatto 1997		80	0.31	66	0.00	73	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.03	83	0.03
Horowitz 1949		54	0.48	61	0.00	61	0.04	54	0.04	61	0.04	72	0.04
Indjic 1988		85	0.21	85	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	82	0.03	88	0.02
Kapell 1951		46	0.51	86	0.00	71	0.04	65	0.04	55	0.05	70	0.04
Kissin 1993		31	0.57	44	0.00	31	0.06	32	0.24	31	0.30	32	0.27
Kushner 1989		11	0.68	78	0.00	26	0.06	30	0.26	14	0.42	27	0.33
Luisada 1991		43	0.53	62	0.00	62	0.04	68	0.04	50	0.06	64	0.05
Lushtak 2004		60	0.45	59	0.00	50	0.04	57	0.04	68	0.04	76	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		5	0.72	16	0.01	7	0.16	10	0.58	12	0.47	12	0.52
Magaloff 1978		3	0.72	6	0.05	8	0.18	9	0.58	7	0.47	11	0.52
Magin 1975		44	0.53	63	0.00	42	0.06	43	0.14	25	0.25	42	0.19
Michalowski 1933		79	0.32	55	0.00	70	0.03	73	0.03	54	0.05	73	0.04
Milkina 1970		29	0.57	74	0.00	36	0.07	24	0.33	27	0.32	29	0.32
Mohovich 1999		14	0.67	10	0.02	13	0.15	12	0.51	10	0.56	10	0.53
Moravec 1969		53	0.49	30	0.00	68	0.04	60	0.04	39	0.12	55	0.07
Morozova 2008		35	0.54	35	0.00	33	0.09	23	0.33	18	0.32	30	0.32
Neighaus 1950		9	0.69	4	0.12	4	0.18	5	0.66	5	0.60	5	0.63
Niedzielski 1931		75	0.39	79	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	75	0.03	87	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		23	0.59	14	0.01	24	0.07	36	0.19	44	0.12	44	0.15
Osinska 1989		4	0.72	8	0.04	9	0.18	3	0.70	3	0.78	2	0.74
Pachmann 1927		76	0.37	87	0.00	56	0.03	72	0.03	45	0.10	67	0.05
Paderewski 1930		52	0.49	67	0.00	72	0.05	50	0.05	50	0.05	66	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		36	0.54	36	0.00	29	0.06	27	0.28	21	0.41	26	0.34
Pierdomenico 2008		47	0.51	68	0.00	48	0.04	64	0.04	25	0.24	49	0.10
Poblocka 1999		34	0.54	37	0.00	69	0.03	69	0.03	59	0.04	80	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		13	0.67	19	0.01	14	0.10	11	0.54	4	0.72	6	0.62
Rachmaninoff 1923		55	0.48	39	0.00	39	0.05	39	0.17	30	0.26	41	0.21
Rangell 2001		22	0.59	40	0.00	19	0.06	16	0.42	15	0.39	20	0.40
Richter 1976		71	0.43	64	0.00	74	0.02	86	0.02	55	0.04	81	0.03
Rosen 1989		2	0.73	2	0.16	3	0.22	2	0.76	3	0.75	1	0.75
Rosenthal 1930		27	0.58	25	0.00	35	0.06	28	0.27	9	0.57	21	0.39
Rosenthal 1931		57	0.46	75	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.14	12	0.53	33	0.27
Rosenthal 1931b		63	0.44	69	0.00	49	0.05	48	0.05	15	0.46	46	0.15
Rosenthal 1931c		28	0.58	80	0.00	28	0.07	22	0.33	10	0.61	15	0.45
Rosenthal 1931d		51	0.49	21	0.00	51	0.04	53	0.04	16	0.38	47	0.12
Rossi 2007		59	0.46	23	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.14	6	0.48	34	0.26
Rubinstein 1939		81	0.30	26	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	30	0.28	43	0.17
Rubinstein 1952		45	0.52	15	0.01	44	0.06	40	0.16	25	0.31	39	0.22
Rubinstein 1966		37	0.54	46	0.00	40	0.05	31	0.24	8	0.51	24	0.35
Schilhawsky 1960		65	0.44	70	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03
Shebanova 2002		61	0.44	32	0.00	75	0.03	82	0.03	71	0.04	84	0.03
Smith 1975		6	0.71	5	0.07	5	0.23	4	0.68	3	0.63	3	0.65
Sokolov 2002		15	0.66	12	0.02	16	0.08	17	0.42	13	0.42	16	0.42
Sztompka 1959		48	0.51	49	0.00	65	0.05	49	0.05	39	0.17	53	0.09
Tomsic 1995		24	0.59	28	0.00	30	0.07	26	0.31	18	0.35	28	0.33
Uninsky 1932		72	0.42	56	0.00	66	0.04	59	0.04	52	0.05	75	0.04
Uninsky 1971		32	0.55	20	0.00	25	0.07	37	0.18	37	0.26	38	0.22
Wasowski 1980		62	0.44	65	0.00	77	0.03	75	0.03	64	0.04	79	0.03
Zak 1937		70	0.43	71	0.00	59	0.04	67	0.04	67	0.04	71	0.04
Zak 1951		66	0.44	72	0.00	57	0.04	58	0.04	46	0.08	60	0.06
Average		1	0.78	3	0.14	2	0.24	1	0.77	15	0.40	9	0.55
Random 1		91	-0.02	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	50	0.04	89	0.02
Random 2		90	0.00	81	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	27	0.23	57	0.07
Random 3		89	0.04	60	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	32	0.24	58	0.07

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).