Harasiewicz 1955

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