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