Luisada 1991

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		28	0.67	29	0.00	26	0.09	28	0.37	32	0.29	29	0.33
Anderszewski 2003		5	0.75	4	0.05	3	0.13	12	0.48	4	0.53	9	0.50
Ashkenazy 1981		7	0.73	14	0.01	5	0.12	6	0.51	10	0.48	12	0.49
Bacha 2000		35	0.64	3	0.08	12	0.11	24	0.41	3	0.61	7	0.50
Badura 1965		68	0.50	71	0.00	74	0.03	85	0.03	63	0.04	88	0.03
Barbosa 1983		60	0.56	41	0.00	58	0.04	56	0.04	38	0.18	56	0.08
Biret 1990		14	0.70	37	0.00	27	0.10	22	0.42	9	0.46	21	0.44
Blet 2003		22	0.68	12	0.01	37	0.09	33	0.26	15	0.37	31	0.31
Block 1995		46	0.59	30	0.00	44	0.04	43	0.08	14	0.36	40	0.17
Blumental 1952		50	0.58	16	0.01	50	0.06	48	0.06	23	0.21	49	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		36	0.64	36	0.00	46	0.06	46	0.06	40	0.17	52	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		9	0.72	5	0.04	11	0.10	23	0.41	4	0.59	11	0.49
Bunin 1987		75	0.47	80	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	72	0.04	89	0.03
Bunin 1987b		76	0.47	75	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	72	0.04	82	0.03
Chiu 1999		19	0.69	67	0.00	25	0.13	25	0.41	6	0.57	13	0.48
Cohen 1997		86	0.40	65	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	43	0.08	71	0.05
Cortot 1951		72	0.50	54	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	68	0.04	90	0.03
Csalog 1996		88	0.33	64	0.00	73	0.03	81	0.03	32	0.21	57	0.08
Czerny 1949		58	0.56	81	0.00	56	0.04	69	0.04	53	0.06	70	0.05
Czerny 1990		16	0.69	72	0.00	30	0.08	26	0.38	28	0.25	32	0.31
Duchoud 2007		57	0.56	53	0.00	55	0.04	70	0.04	47	0.05	78	0.04
Ezaki 2006		3	0.77	35	0.00	10	0.12	13	0.48	20	0.37	24	0.42
Falvay 1989		48	0.58	48	0.00	59	0.04	65	0.04	38	0.26	50	0.10
Farrell 1958		32	0.66	61	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	28	0.24	43	0.14
Ferenczy 1958		54	0.57	23	0.00	51	0.05	51	0.05	75	0.03	76	0.04
Fliere 1977		4	0.76	10	0.01	7	0.13	2	0.63	11	0.48	2	0.55
Fou 1978		15	0.69	38	0.00	22	0.08	20	0.44	13	0.42	22	0.43
Francois 1956		65	0.52	70	0.00	57	0.05	53	0.05	38	0.18	55	0.09
Friedman 1923		84	0.44	77	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	43	0.14	67	0.06
Friedman 1923b		83	0.44	69	0.00	78	0.04	63	0.04	45	0.12	60	0.07
Friedman 1930		73	0.49	50	0.00	66	0.04	67	0.04	53	0.05	75	0.04
Garcia 2007		43	0.61	85	0.00	48	0.05	52	0.05	21	0.36	44	0.13
Garcia 2007b		49	0.58	39	0.00	34	0.08	35	0.20	7	0.39	35	0.28
Gierzod 1998		25	0.68	7	0.03	19	0.09	17	0.47	19	0.39	23	0.43
Gornostaeva 1994		38	0.63	56	0.00	43	0.04	44	0.08	36	0.19	45	0.12
Groot 1988		52	0.57	73	0.00	61	0.05	50	0.05	52	0.04	80	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		40	0.62	82	0.00	38	0.07	38	0.15	42	0.10	46	0.12
Hatto 1993		20	0.69	19	0.01	6	0.12	9	0.49	4	0.63	1	0.56
Hatto 1997		13	0.70	31	0.00	9	0.11	14	0.48	7	0.53	10	0.50
Horowitz 1949		59	0.56	60	0.00	69	0.04	58	0.04	42	0.10	62	0.06
Indjic 1988		17	0.69	40	0.00	8	0.10	10	0.49	6	0.61	3	0.55
Kapell 1951		47	0.58	33	0.00	41	0.05	40	0.13	63	0.04	58	0.07
Kissin 1993		12	0.71	20	0.01	18	0.10	5	0.52	13	0.48	8	0.50
Kushner 1989		8	0.72	28	0.00	24	0.11	16	0.48	17	0.45	18	0.46
Luisada 1991		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Lushtak 2004		29	0.66	42	0.00	36	0.07	34	0.23	27	0.24	36	0.23
Malcuzynski 1961		67	0.51	87	0.00	71	0.03	75	0.03	79	0.03	83	0.03
Magaloff 1978		39	0.62	13	0.01	35	0.07	37	0.17	29	0.29	37	0.22
Magin 1975		6	0.75	2	0.16	2	0.18	4	0.54	4	0.55	5	0.54
Michalowski 1933		79	0.46	66	0.00	67	0.04	60	0.04	49	0.07	69	0.05
Milkina 1970		27	0.67	6	0.04	16	0.09	11	0.49	14	0.47	14	0.48
Mohovich 1999		18	0.69	9	0.02	31	0.07	30	0.33	30	0.32	30	0.32
Moravec 1969		74	0.47	58	0.00	64	0.04	61	0.04	39	0.22	53	0.09
Morozova 2008		2	0.78	25	0.00	4	0.16	8	0.50	6	0.46	15	0.48
Neighaus 1950		33	0.65	32	0.00	32	0.08	27	0.38	36	0.20	34	0.28
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.54	68	0.00	39	0.04	42	0.11	26	0.28	38	0.18
Ohlsson 1999		21	0.68	15	0.01	23	0.09	18	0.46	13	0.44	19	0.45
Osinska 1989		31	0.66	24	0.00	29	0.07	29	0.35	27	0.32	28	0.33
Pachmann 1927		80	0.46	49	0.00	86	0.03	80	0.03	32	0.17	59	0.07
Paderewski 1930		66	0.51	88	0.00	76	0.03	76	0.03	64	0.03	85	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		37	0.64	59	0.00	42	0.04	41	0.11	30	0.19	41	0.14
Pierdomenico 2008		56	0.56	79	0.00	52	0.04	71	0.04	34	0.26	51	0.10
Poblocka 1999		41	0.61	44	0.00	40	0.04	39	0.13	39	0.15	42	0.14
Rabcewiczowa 1932		51	0.57	55	0.00	53	0.05	54	0.05	39	0.15	54	0.09
Rachmaninoff 1923		42	0.61	51	0.00	47	0.05	49	0.05	47	0.05	68	0.05
Rangell 2001		78	0.46	52	0.00	68	0.04	66	0.04	42	0.13	61	0.07
Richter 1976		71	0.50	84	0.00	82	0.03	79	0.03	66	0.04	84	0.03
Rosen 1989		10	0.72	47	0.00	13	0.14	3	0.56	9	0.54	4	0.55
Rosenthal 1930		85	0.41	74	0.00	88	0.04	72	0.04	82	0.02	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.45	83	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	41	0.12	64	0.06
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.44	89	0.00	79	0.02	87	0.02	36	0.10	81	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		87	0.40	91	0.00	87	0.04	73	0.04	44	0.08	66	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		77	0.46	76	0.00	72	0.03	74	0.03	41	0.13	65	0.06
Rossi 2007		69	0.50	63	0.00	54	0.04	59	0.04	24	0.28	47	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		44	0.60	17	0.01	49	0.06	47	0.06	5	0.47	39	0.17
Rubinstein 1952		63	0.54	8	0.02	28	0.08	36	0.19	20	0.45	33	0.29
Rubinstein 1966		24	0.68	34	0.00	33	0.10	31	0.32	12	0.56	25	0.42
Schilhawsky 1960		61	0.56	62	0.00	62	0.04	57	0.04	73	0.04	74	0.04
Shebanova 2002		26	0.67	21	0.00	20	0.11	19	0.45	16	0.46	20	0.45
Smith 1975		11	0.71	26	0.00	15	0.11	21	0.43	16	0.39	26	0.41
Sokolov 2002		55	0.57	18	0.01	63	0.04	62	0.04	55	0.04	72	0.04
Sztompka 1959		45	0.60	46	0.00	65	0.05	55	0.05	50	0.07	63	0.06
Tomsic 1995		53	0.57	78	0.00	60	0.04	68	0.04	31	0.28	48	0.11
Uninsky 1932		62	0.55	57	0.00	70	0.04	64	0.04	57	0.05	77	0.04
Uninsky 1971		70	0.50	22	0.00	75	0.03	78	0.03	70	0.05	73	0.04
Wasowski 1980		34	0.65	11	0.01	14	0.10	32	0.32	9	0.39	27	0.35
Zak 1937		23	0.68	43	0.00	21	0.13	15	0.48	12	0.46	16	0.47
Zak 1951		30	0.66	27	0.00	17	0.10	7	0.51	14	0.43	17	0.47
Average		1	0.81	1	0.37	1	0.37	1	0.73	17	0.38	6	0.53
Random 1		91	-0.19	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.12	90	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	63	0.04	86	0.03
Random 3		89	-0.01	45	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	42	0.10	79	0.04

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).