Luisada 1991

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

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).