Chiu 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		22	0.59	24	0.01	26	0.04	26	0.29	86	0.03	46	0.09
Anderszewski 2003		51	0.48	73	0.00	65	0.04	57	0.04	84	0.03	82	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		17	0.62	7	0.04	16	0.13	12	0.48	40	0.18	18	0.29
Bacha 2000		18	0.61	15	0.01	11	0.11	9	0.51	5	0.52	4	0.51
Badura 1965		43	0.51	17	0.01	59	0.03	73	0.03	58	0.05	67	0.04
Barbosa 1983		1	0.72	1	0.24	1	0.24	2	0.66	1	0.72	1	0.69
Biret 1990		12	0.63	12	0.01	8	0.11	10	0.50	23	0.31	9	0.39
Blet 2003		29	0.56	72	0.00	48	0.07	46	0.07	67	0.04	58	0.05
Block 1995		60	0.46	11	0.02	30	0.05	45	0.09	36	0.17	34	0.12
Blumental 1952		32	0.56	29	0.00	46	0.06	48	0.06	22	0.22	38	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		48	0.49	27	0.00	55	0.04	60	0.04	59	0.05	68	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		7	0.66	68	0.00	14	0.10	8	0.51	7	0.54	2	0.52
Bunin 1987		69	0.42	79	0.00	71	0.03	78	0.03	57	0.05	69	0.04
Bunin 1987b		71	0.41	58	0.00	70	0.03	76	0.03	56	0.05	60	0.04
Chiu 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Cohen 1997		47	0.49	14	0.01	61	0.03	72	0.03	17	0.31	42	0.10
Cortot 1951		72	0.41	39	0.00	83	0.04	65	0.04	80	0.04	71	0.04
Csalog 1996		81	0.36	18	0.01	27	0.04	42	0.15	25	0.29	24	0.21
Czerny 1949		63	0.45	87	0.00	75	0.03	87	0.03	73	0.04	84	0.03
Czerny 1990		21	0.59	34	0.00	32	0.05	24	0.31	73	0.03	43	0.10
Duchoud 2007		45	0.50	35	0.00	43	0.07	38	0.18	38	0.16	27	0.17
Ezaki 2006		6	0.67	30	0.00	19	0.11	16	0.46	48	0.06	25	0.17
Falvay 1989		13	0.63	56	0.00	22	0.06	23	0.31	17	0.43	10	0.37
Farrell 1958		23	0.59	28	0.00	34	0.05	34	0.20	38	0.12	28	0.15
Ferenczy 1958		77	0.40	51	0.00	72	0.03	79	0.03	86	0.03	83	0.03
Fliere 1977		14	0.63	6	0.04	6	0.13	3	0.61	40	0.17	17	0.32
Fou 1978		9	0.65	23	0.01	15	0.11	13	0.48	30	0.27	11	0.36
Francois 1956		55	0.47	61	0.00	51	0.04	55	0.04	70	0.03	90	0.03
Friedman 1923		76	0.40	38	0.00	85	0.03	80	0.03	59	0.05	74	0.04
Friedman 1923b		75	0.40	65	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	53	0.06	70	0.04
Friedman 1930		58	0.46	19	0.01	69	0.03	74	0.03	62	0.05	65	0.04
Garcia 2007		59	0.46	77	0.00	74	0.03	86	0.03	74	0.03	85	0.03
Garcia 2007b		67	0.43	70	0.00	80	0.03	75	0.03	50	0.05	73	0.04
Gierzod 1998		54	0.47	74	0.00	54	0.05	52	0.05	71	0.04	66	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		57	0.47	55	0.00	58	0.04	56	0.04	79	0.03	87	0.03
Groot 1988		27	0.57	63	0.00	29	0.06	20	0.38	32	0.31	15	0.34
Harasiewicz 1955		19	0.61	20	0.01	31	0.06	39	0.17	72	0.03	52	0.07
Hatto 1993		40	0.53	31	0.00	41	0.07	35	0.19	62	0.04	48	0.09
Hatto 1997		35	0.55	69	0.00	40	0.05	33	0.21	73	0.04	45	0.09
Horowitz 1949		41	0.52	40	0.00	53	0.04	54	0.04	39	0.18	50	0.08
Indjic 1988		38	0.54	32	0.00	25	0.05	31	0.22	59	0.05	41	0.10
Kapell 1951		73	0.41	81	0.00	52	0.06	49	0.06	68	0.04	56	0.05
Kissin 1993		37	0.55	44	0.00	23	0.05	30	0.25	55	0.05	37	0.11
Kushner 1989		31	0.56	49	0.00	35	0.05	29	0.26	63	0.04	40	0.10
Luisada 1991		3	0.69	60	0.00	9	0.13	6	0.57	25	0.41	5	0.48
Lushtak 2004		5	0.67	43	0.00	21	0.11	18	0.42	55	0.05	30	0.14
Malcuzynski 1961		80	0.37	66	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	67	0.04	78	0.03
Magaloff 1978		42	0.52	75	0.00	42	0.06	37	0.18	47	0.08	32	0.12
Magin 1975		56	0.47	45	0.00	44	0.07	40	0.17	48	0.05	44	0.09
Michalowski 1933		83	0.34	67	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	71	0.04	81	0.03
Milkina 1970		39	0.53	36	0.00	18	0.11	21	0.37	35	0.19	20	0.27
Mohovich 1999		16	0.62	8	0.03	20	0.11	19	0.42	40	0.15	22	0.25
Moravec 1969		61	0.45	26	0.00	47	0.07	47	0.07	35	0.24	31	0.13
Morozova 2008		10	0.65	13	0.01	12	0.11	11	0.49	26	0.24	13	0.34
Neighaus 1950		20	0.59	9	0.03	13	0.10	15	0.47	62	0.05	29	0.15
Niedzielski 1931		78	0.39	37	0.00	57	0.04	58	0.04	65	0.03	77	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		28	0.56	5	0.05	10	0.11	14	0.47	30	0.26	12	0.35
Osinska 1989		34	0.55	42	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	79	0.03	53	0.06
Pachmann 1927		24	0.58	41	0.00	28	0.04	25	0.30	5	0.53	8	0.40
Paderewski 1930		66	0.43	59	0.00	68	0.04	61	0.04	77	0.03	80	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		15	0.62	57	0.00	33	0.05	43	0.13	53	0.05	49	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		53	0.48	53	0.00	49	0.05	51	0.05	35	0.23	35	0.11
Poblocka 1999		74	0.41	52	0.00	56	0.05	53	0.05	62	0.05	54	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		44	0.51	16	0.01	50	0.06	50	0.06	52	0.04	55	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		33	0.55	47	0.00	38	0.05	28	0.27	53	0.05	33	0.12
Rangell 2001		79	0.37	25	0.00	37	0.05	41	0.16	18	0.38	23	0.25
Richter 1976		82	0.36	46	0.00	67	0.04	63	0.04	53	0.06	57	0.05
Rosen 1989		26	0.58	10	0.03	17	0.11	17	0.45	28	0.26	14	0.34
Rosenthal 1930		87	0.23	86	0.00	88	0.04	66	0.04	81	0.02	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.27	84	0.00	86	0.04	59	0.04	58	0.04	63	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.28	88	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	49	0.05	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		88	0.21	64	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	82	0.03	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.29	85	0.00	77	0.03	88	0.03	70	0.04	88	0.03
Rossi 2007		50	0.48	76	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	67	0.04	76	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		64	0.45	33	0.00	62	0.04	64	0.04	31	0.28	36	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		49	0.49	89	0.00	39	0.05	36	0.19	24	0.38	21	0.27
Rubinstein 1966		25	0.58	54	0.00	24	0.05	27	0.27	22	0.41	16	0.33
Schilhawsky 1960		65	0.44	62	0.00	60	0.03	68	0.03	50	0.06	64	0.04
Shebanova 2002		11	0.64	21	0.01	7	0.09	7	0.55	18	0.42	6	0.48
Smith 1975		30	0.56	71	0.00	36	0.06	32	0.22	51	0.05	39	0.10
Sokolov 2002		68	0.42	83	0.00	64	0.03	70	0.03	75	0.03	75	0.03
Sztompka 1959		62	0.45	78	0.00	81	0.03	69	0.03	62	0.05	61	0.04
Tomsic 1995		52	0.48	90	0.00	63	0.04	62	0.04	74	0.03	79	0.03
Uninsky 1932		46	0.50	48	0.00	66	0.04	67	0.04	48	0.07	59	0.05
Uninsky 1971		70	0.42	22	0.01	73	0.03	71	0.03	68	0.05	62	0.04
Wasowski 1980		36	0.55	3	0.09	5	0.14	22	0.33	25	0.23	19	0.28
Zak 1937		4	0.68	4	0.09	3	0.23	4	0.61	16	0.45	3	0.52
Zak 1951		8	0.66	50	0.00	4	0.17	5	0.61	20	0.34	7	0.46
Average		2	0.69	2	0.15	2	0.18	1	0.69	60	0.04	26	0.17
Random 1		91	-0.12	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	62	0.04	91	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.06	82	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	19	0.23	51	0.07
Random 3		89	-0.03	80	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	12	0.42	47	0.09

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).