Brailowsky 1960

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		46	0.57	43	0.00	62	0.04	75	0.04	51	0.04	63	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		21	0.64	37	0.00	44	0.10	40	0.21	47	0.05	40	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		40	0.58	38	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.17	62	0.04	47	0.08
Bacha 2000		8	0.70	23	0.01	15	0.10	13	0.45	12	0.45	8	0.45
Badura 1965		83	0.40	44	0.00	86	0.05	51	0.05	79	0.03	68	0.04
Barbosa 1983		58	0.52	12	0.02	10	0.07	39	0.21	32	0.21	25	0.21
Biret 1990		12	0.67	39	0.00	28	0.05	26	0.33	56	0.05	34	0.13
Blet 2003		55	0.53	53	0.00	77	0.04	68	0.04	83	0.03	79	0.03
Block 1995		26	0.62	4	0.07	6	0.10	15	0.41	12	0.39	12	0.40
Blumental 1952		70	0.48	60	0.00	67	0.03	80	0.03	83	0.02	89	0.02
Boshniakovich 1969		25	0.62	41	0.00	39	0.06	34	0.24	76	0.03	46	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Bunin 1987		79	0.43	73	0.00	79	0.05	57	0.05	80	0.03	69	0.04
Bunin 1987b		80	0.42	75	0.00	78	0.05	55	0.05	76	0.03	58	0.04
Chiu 1999		14	0.66	25	0.01	11	0.07	7	0.54	8	0.51	4	0.52
Cohen 1997		65	0.50	57	0.00	47	0.05	58	0.05	8	0.44	29	0.15
Cortot 1951		67	0.48	64	0.00	80	0.04	72	0.04	66	0.04	70	0.04
Csalog 1996		82	0.41	47	0.00	59	0.05	50	0.05	40	0.15	43	0.09
Czerny 1949		73	0.47	31	0.00	74	0.03	86	0.03	88	0.02	87	0.02
Czerny 1990		28	0.61	69	0.00	53	0.04	64	0.04	79	0.03	84	0.03
Duchoud 2007		77	0.45	36	0.00	76	0.04	77	0.04	65	0.04	65	0.04
Ezaki 2006		10	0.68	30	0.00	33	0.09	25	0.34	80	0.03	38	0.10
Falvay 1989		6	0.71	9	0.03	4	0.13	5	0.57	10	0.55	1	0.56
Farrell 1958		18	0.66	86	0.00	30	0.07	22	0.35	33	0.20	19	0.26
Ferenczy 1958		53	0.54	27	0.01	69	0.04	78	0.04	71	0.04	62	0.04
Fliere 1977		7	0.70	17	0.01	13	0.09	8	0.52	55	0.04	31	0.14
Fou 1978		15	0.66	19	0.01	20	0.07	14	0.43	40	0.12	23	0.23
Francois 1956		49	0.56	79	0.00	58	0.05	62	0.05	71	0.03	71	0.04
Friedman 1923		87	0.23	90	0.00	88	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.02	90	0.02
Friedman 1923b		88	0.23	91	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	84	0.03	83	0.03
Friedman 1930		85	0.36	88	0.00	85	0.04	79	0.04	82	0.03	80	0.03
Garcia 2007		59	0.52	76	0.00	55	0.05	48	0.05	72	0.03	66	0.04
Garcia 2007b		68	0.48	35	0.00	46	0.05	59	0.05	35	0.13	48	0.08
Gierzod 1998		45	0.57	58	0.00	56	0.05	56	0.05	82	0.03	64	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		13	0.67	42	0.00	35	0.08	30	0.29	40	0.14	26	0.20
Groot 1988		9	0.70	2	0.13	3	0.16	3	0.61	18	0.48	3	0.54
Harasiewicz 1955		32	0.60	50	0.00	26	0.08	21	0.36	46	0.06	30	0.15
Hatto 1993		78	0.44	81	0.00	66	0.04	67	0.04	49	0.06	55	0.05
Hatto 1997		71	0.47	85	0.00	71	0.05	49	0.05	68	0.04	61	0.04
Horowitz 1949		35	0.59	16	0.01	27	0.06	38	0.22	25	0.38	17	0.29
Indjic 1988		75	0.46	84	0.00	70	0.04	74	0.04	62	0.05	60	0.04
Kapell 1951		60	0.52	24	0.01	36	0.06	45	0.10	55	0.05	49	0.07
Kissin 1993		31	0.60	29	0.00	37	0.06	29	0.30	52	0.06	33	0.13
Kushner 1989		17	0.66	40	0.00	34	0.08	28	0.30	54	0.05	35	0.12
Luisada 1991		5	0.72	5	0.05	5	0.14	4	0.59	23	0.41	5	0.49
Lushtak 2004		33	0.60	63	0.00	29	0.06	37	0.22	51	0.05	42	0.10
Malcuzynski 1961		47	0.57	51	0.00	54	0.04	70	0.04	62	0.04	59	0.04
Magaloff 1978		2	0.74	1	0.20	1	0.19	2	0.61	8	0.48	2	0.54
Magin 1975		44	0.57	20	0.01	24	0.07	24	0.34	32	0.18	20	0.25
Michalowski 1933		86	0.35	65	0.00	81	0.03	87	0.03	73	0.04	77	0.03
Milkina 1970		4	0.72	32	0.00	7	0.09	9	0.52	21	0.37	10	0.44
Mohovich 1999		3	0.73	11	0.02	9	0.07	6	0.55	35	0.24	14	0.36
Moravec 1969		56	0.53	72	0.00	51	0.04	65	0.04	43	0.18	44	0.08
Morozova 2008		38	0.58	13	0.02	38	0.05	36	0.23	50	0.04	41	0.10
Neighaus 1950		22	0.64	33	0.00	42	0.07	35	0.24	54	0.05	37	0.11
Niedzielski 1931		57	0.52	15	0.01	49	0.04	63	0.04	67	0.03	74	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		27	0.61	34	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.11	72	0.04	50	0.07
Osinska 1989		16	0.66	67	0.00	40	0.07	32	0.25	65	0.04	39	0.10
Pachmann 1927		36	0.59	52	0.00	60	0.05	53	0.05	37	0.13	45	0.08
Paderewski 1930		54	0.53	80	0.00	68	0.03	85	0.03	84	0.02	86	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		29	0.61	55	0.00	52	0.05	61	0.05	61	0.04	56	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		51	0.54	45	0.00	25	0.10	20	0.36	23	0.39	13	0.37
Poblocka 1999		63	0.50	26	0.01	65	0.04	66	0.04	82	0.03	72	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		61	0.51	78	0.00	75	0.04	76	0.04	83	0.03	75	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		34	0.59	62	0.00	48	0.05	54	0.05	74	0.03	57	0.04
Rangell 2001		52	0.54	87	0.00	23	0.06	31	0.28	31	0.26	18	0.27
Richter 1976		66	0.48	46	0.00	64	0.04	71	0.04	49	0.06	53	0.05
Rosen 1989		19	0.66	14	0.02	14	0.08	19	0.39	29	0.26	16	0.32
Rosenthal 1930		72	0.47	49	0.00	72	0.05	52	0.05	69	0.03	67	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		41	0.58	68	0.00	21	0.07	23	0.34	12	0.52	11	0.42
Rosenthal 1931b		37	0.58	48	0.00	17	0.07	18	0.39	11	0.52	9	0.45
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.48	66	0.00	63	0.04	69	0.04	72	0.03	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		24	0.63	56	0.00	16	0.10	11	0.46	10	0.50	7	0.48
Rossi 2007		64	0.50	82	0.00	41	0.05	43	0.13	39	0.15	32	0.14
Rubinstein 1939		50	0.55	6	0.04	22	0.06	33	0.25	7	0.43	15	0.33
Rubinstein 1952		39	0.58	7	0.04	8	0.09	10	0.46	14	0.53	6	0.49
Rubinstein 1966		23	0.63	59	0.00	32	0.08	41	0.20	33	0.27	24	0.23
Schilhawsky 1960		76	0.46	21	0.01	73	0.07	46	0.07	83	0.03	54	0.05
Shebanova 2002		20	0.65	22	0.01	31	0.08	27	0.33	69	0.04	36	0.11
Smith 1975		11	0.67	18	0.01	12	0.08	12	0.45	38	0.12	22	0.23
Sokolov 2002		62	0.50	77	0.00	61	0.04	73	0.04	82	0.03	73	0.03
Sztompka 1959		74	0.47	74	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.03	76	0.03
Tomsic 1995		48	0.57	83	0.00	57	0.05	60	0.05	48	0.05	52	0.05
Uninsky 1932		81	0.41	54	0.00	84	0.03	88	0.03	83	0.03	81	0.03
Uninsky 1971		84	0.40	70	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	73	0.04	78	0.03
Wasowski 1980		42	0.57	28	0.01	50	0.06	47	0.06	46	0.06	51	0.06
Zak 1937		30	0.60	8	0.04	19	0.12	17	0.39	42	0.15	21	0.24
Zak 1951		43	0.57	10	0.03	18	0.07	16	0.40	44	0.09	27	0.19
Average		1	0.76	3	0.10	2	0.15	1	0.64	67	0.04	28	0.16
Random 1		91	-0.20	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.16	61	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	77	0.03	88	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.02	71	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	59	0.05	82	0.03

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).