Random 3

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

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).