Lushtak 2004

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		13	0.68	53	0.00	36	0.06	29	0.23	35	0.26	35	0.24
Anderszewski 2003		56	0.57	52	0.00	46	0.05	59	0.05	32	0.17	62	0.09
Ashkenazy 1981		4	0.72	54	0.00	17	0.08	7	0.45	17	0.45	10	0.45
Bacha 2000		64	0.54	79	0.00	68	0.03	74	0.03	51	0.06	74	0.04
Badura 1965		48	0.60	39	0.00	56	0.04	65	0.04	26	0.35	54	0.12
Barbosa 1983		16	0.67	37	0.00	25	0.07	23	0.28	5	0.60	11	0.41
Biret 1990		23	0.66	4	0.04	6	0.13	8	0.45	6	0.49	7	0.47
Blet 2003		9	0.70	55	0.00	23	0.08	19	0.33	6	0.48	13	0.40
Block 1995		77	0.43	60	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	73	0.03	85	0.03
Blumental 1952		53	0.58	67	0.00	62	0.06	46	0.06	21	0.22	56	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		46	0.60	19	0.00	57	0.04	61	0.04	47	0.07	70	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		47	0.60	61	0.00	53	0.05	51	0.05	37	0.22	58	0.10
Bunin 1987		32	0.64	90	0.00	33	0.06	33	0.20	4	0.54	25	0.33
Bunin 1987b		37	0.63	70	0.00	34	0.06	34	0.20	5	0.54	24	0.33
Chiu 1999		15	0.67	43	0.00	50	0.05	55	0.05	18	0.42	46	0.14
Cohen 1997		66	0.53	40	0.00	73	0.03	73	0.03	9	0.41	57	0.11
Cortot 1951		51	0.59	12	0.01	42	0.05	41	0.13	23	0.31	40	0.20
Csalog 1996		74	0.45	62	0.00	63	0.05	57	0.05	23	0.35	51	0.13
Czerny 1949		54	0.58	88	0.00	61	0.05	53	0.05	35	0.17	64	0.09
Czerny 1990		28	0.66	77	0.00	39	0.05	36	0.17	33	0.18	43	0.17
Duchoud 2007		52	0.58	63	0.00	49	0.06	47	0.06	12	0.40	45	0.15
Ezaki 2006		2	0.74	28	0.00	12	0.07	13	0.40	18	0.38	15	0.39
Falvay 1989		27	0.66	13	0.01	10	0.11	21	0.29	12	0.52	17	0.39
Farrell 1958		18	0.67	14	0.01	31	0.06	32	0.20	10	0.42	30	0.29
Ferenczy 1958		40	0.62	68	0.00	55	0.04	60	0.04	13	0.36	53	0.12
Fliere 1977		5	0.71	30	0.00	16	0.07	3	0.49	25	0.31	16	0.39
Fou 1978		10	0.70	49	0.00	14	0.07	18	0.34	23	0.36	21	0.35
Francois 1956		50	0.59	34	0.00	32	0.07	35	0.19	22	0.37	32	0.27
Friedman 1923		81	0.42	80	0.00	88	0.04	68	0.04	65	0.05	80	0.04
Friedman 1923b		78	0.43	31	0.00	87	0.04	62	0.04	48	0.07	71	0.05
Friedman 1930		67	0.53	47	0.00	67	0.04	67	0.04	34	0.24	60	0.10
Garcia 2007		61	0.55	75	0.00	64	0.06	50	0.06	26	0.31	50	0.14
Garcia 2007b		75	0.44	65	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	59	0.04	88	0.03
Gierzod 1998		36	0.63	15	0.01	40	0.05	42	0.12	40	0.16	49	0.14
Gornostaeva 1994		70	0.50	81	0.00	71	0.03	70	0.03	56	0.04	87	0.03
Groot 1988		29	0.65	57	0.00	20	0.08	20	0.31	10	0.53	12	0.41
Harasiewicz 1955		17	0.67	42	0.00	21	0.07	15	0.36	26	0.33	22	0.34
Hatto 1993		41	0.62	74	0.00	38	0.05	43	0.10	18	0.32	42	0.18
Hatto 1997		21	0.67	35	0.00	27	0.08	24	0.25	15	0.39	28	0.31
Horowitz 1949		68	0.50	87	0.00	76	0.03	81	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.03
Indjic 1988		33	0.64	56	0.00	35	0.06	38	0.14	18	0.36	37	0.22
Kapell 1951		38	0.63	16	0.01	5	0.11	5	0.46	9	0.46	8	0.46
Kissin 1993		30	0.65	45	0.00	52	0.05	52	0.05	46	0.06	69	0.05
Kushner 1989		34	0.64	21	0.00	29	0.06	26	0.24	23	0.36	31	0.29
Luisada 1991		22	0.66	29	0.00	26	0.07	27	0.24	34	0.23	36	0.23
Lushtak 2004		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Malcuzynski 1961		73	0.48	51	0.00	77	0.03	85	0.03	85	0.03	83	0.03
Magaloff 1978		45	0.60	3	0.05	8	0.10	30	0.22	25	0.31	33	0.26
Magin 1975		69	0.50	50	0.00	72	0.03	71	0.03	49	0.05	75	0.04
Michalowski 1933		82	0.42	89	0.00	75	0.02	87	0.02	51	0.07	76	0.04
Milkina 1970		65	0.54	44	0.00	70	0.03	79	0.03	68	0.04	82	0.03
Mohovich 1999		12	0.69	8	0.02	7	0.09	4	0.47	11	0.53	4	0.50
Moravec 1969		79	0.43	71	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	83	0.03	89	0.02
Morozova 2008		11	0.69	22	0.00	24	0.09	22	0.28	14	0.34	27	0.31
Neighaus 1950		7	0.71	6	0.04	13	0.07	10	0.42	16	0.35	19	0.38
Niedzielski 1931		80	0.42	20	0.00	81	0.03	77	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		14	0.68	27	0.00	18	0.08	11	0.41	22	0.38	18	0.39
Osinska 1989		42	0.61	32	0.00	47	0.05	58	0.05	36	0.18	61	0.09
Pachmann 1927		49	0.60	17	0.01	30	0.06	39	0.14	7	0.50	34	0.26
Paderewski 1930		44	0.61	38	0.00	51	0.05	54	0.05	9	0.39	48	0.14
Perlemuter 1992		3	0.73	23	0.00	11	0.08	6	0.46	4	0.53	5	0.49
Pierdomenico 2008		72	0.49	72	0.00	66	0.04	69	0.04	31	0.34	52	0.12
Poblocka 1999		35	0.64	10	0.01	22	0.08	17	0.34	16	0.37	20	0.35
Rabcewiczowa 1932		55	0.58	25	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.09	13	0.43	38	0.20
Rachmaninoff 1923		43	0.61	73	0.00	48	0.06	48	0.06	23	0.31	47	0.14
Rangell 2001		85	0.36	18	0.00	79	0.03	83	0.03	43	0.10	72	0.05
Richter 1976		60	0.55	46	0.00	58	0.04	64	0.04	29	0.27	59	0.10
Rosen 1989		59	0.56	69	0.00	65	0.04	63	0.04	51	0.05	78	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		76	0.43	91	0.00	69	0.03	75	0.03	32	0.22	67	0.08
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.34	83	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	42	0.10	77	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.34	84	0.00	85	0.03	78	0.03	44	0.08	73	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		83	0.42	76	0.00	82	0.03	76	0.03	32	0.25	65	0.09
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.33	66	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	59	0.05	79	0.04
Rossi 2007		84	0.41	26	0.00	86	0.03	72	0.03	45	0.09	68	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		71	0.49	86	0.00	54	0.04	66	0.04	20	0.33	55	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		57	0.57	2	0.11	2	0.11	25	0.25	18	0.47	23	0.34
Rubinstein 1966		31	0.65	64	0.00	28	0.07	31	0.20	18	0.44	29	0.30
Schilhawsky 1960		19	0.67	5	0.04	4	0.10	16	0.35	14	0.45	14	0.40
Shebanova 2002		26	0.66	7	0.04	41	0.06	37	0.15	28	0.28	39	0.20
Smith 1975		24	0.66	24	0.00	19	0.09	12	0.41	7	0.53	6	0.47
Sokolov 2002		39	0.63	48	0.00	37	0.06	28	0.24	13	0.44	26	0.32
Sztompka 1959		25	0.66	58	0.00	43	0.05	40	0.13	33	0.27	41	0.19
Tomsic 1995		20	0.67	9	0.01	9	0.13	14	0.39	3	0.70	3	0.52
Uninsky 1932		63	0.54	59	0.00	59	0.05	56	0.05	42	0.15	63	0.09
Uninsky 1971		62	0.54	33	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.09	32	0.30	44	0.16
Wasowski 1980		58	0.56	41	0.00	60	0.06	49	0.06	40	0.11	66	0.08
Zak 1937		8	0.71	36	0.00	15	0.08	9	0.43	9	0.50	9	0.46
Zak 1951		6	0.71	11	0.01	3	0.11	2	0.53	7	0.53	2	0.53
Average		1	0.80	1	0.49	1	0.49	1	0.76	11	0.51	1	0.62
Random 1		91	-0.18	82	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	65	0.04	91	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.13	78	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	70	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.03	85	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	50	0.05	86	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).