Random 2

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

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).