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		25	0.38	25	0.00	25	0.11	24	0.49	27	0.34	20	0.41
Anderszewski 2003		6	0.45	10	0.02	8	0.17	3	0.76	11	0.63	7	0.69
Ashkenazy 1981		76	0.22	36	0.00	76	0.05	70	0.05	74	0.04	76	0.04
Bacha 2000		35	0.34	71	0.00	26	0.13	28	0.39	19	0.39	21	0.39
Badura 1965		37	0.34	29	0.00	37	0.05	37	0.18	26	0.29	26	0.23
Barbosa 1983		23	0.38	40	0.00	30	0.10	30	0.33	63	0.06	32	0.14
Biret 1990		43	0.32	42	0.00	49	0.06	58	0.06	63	0.04	65	0.05
Blet 2003		63	0.27	66	0.00	63	0.05	66	0.05	81	0.03	74	0.04
Block 1995		9	0.44	17	0.00	9	0.19	14	0.63	17	0.51	15	0.57
Blumental 1952		4	0.49	1	0.35	1	0.35	4	0.74	7	0.68	4	0.71
Boshniakovich 1969		38	0.34	51	0.00	31	0.12	29	0.35	74	0.04	34	0.12
Brailowsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Bunin 1987		65	0.26	69	0.00	74	0.04	77	0.04	87	0.03	85	0.03
Bunin 1987b		70	0.25	60	0.00	75	0.05	64	0.05	67	0.04	69	0.04
Chiu 1999		62	0.27	68	0.00	69	0.06	54	0.06	72	0.04	56	0.05
Cohen 1997		54	0.29	32	0.00	45	0.06	57	0.06	42	0.20	39	0.11
Cortot 1951		40	0.33	22	0.00	27	0.12	32	0.25	22	0.39	24	0.31
Csalog 1996		52	0.30	47	0.00	65	0.04	76	0.04	76	0.04	73	0.04
Czerny 1949		51	0.30	45	0.00	54	0.05	63	0.05	51	0.06	62	0.05
Czerny 1990		58	0.29	41	0.00	47	0.06	53	0.06	65	0.05	64	0.05
Duchoud 2007		84	0.12	90	0.00	84	0.04	79	0.04	86	0.03	84	0.03
Ezaki 2006		3	0.49	3	0.13	4	0.22	6	0.72	10	0.60	9	0.66
Falvay 1989		18	0.41	7	0.02	23	0.11	27	0.40	41	0.12	28	0.22
Farrell 1958		47	0.31	63	0.00	55	0.06	56	0.06	49	0.07	47	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		11	0.43	11	0.02	14	0.11	16	0.63	2	0.79	3	0.71
Fliere 1977		7	0.45	4	0.05	7	0.17	9	0.68	48	0.07	27	0.22
Fou 1978		16	0.42	27	0.00	12	0.13	10	0.67	27	0.35	18	0.48
Francois 1956		77	0.22	82	0.00	77	0.05	65	0.05	72	0.03	78	0.04
Friedman 1923		42	0.32	87	0.00	41	0.06	39	0.15	48	0.07	41	0.10
Friedman 1923b		44	0.31	57	0.00	40	0.05	38	0.17	45	0.08	35	0.12
Friedman 1930		74	0.24	83	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.12	72	0.04	45	0.07
Garcia 2007		80	0.21	61	0.00	79	0.04	78	0.04	75	0.04	75	0.04
Garcia 2007b		81	0.16	53	0.00	82	0.05	72	0.05	81	0.03	79	0.04
Gierzod 1998		10	0.43	13	0.01	10	0.15	7	0.71	22	0.40	16	0.53
Gornostaeva 1994		36	0.34	49	0.00	50	0.05	62	0.05	52	0.06	63	0.05
Groot 1988		34	0.35	46	0.00	32	0.08	31	0.29	74	0.04	40	0.11
Harasiewicz 1955		13	0.43	21	0.00	19	0.15	12	0.65	49	0.06	29	0.20
Hatto 1993		60	0.28	80	0.00	71	0.07	49	0.07	64	0.05	54	0.06
Hatto 1997		56	0.29	84	0.00	66	0.05	67	0.05	50	0.05	60	0.05
Horowitz 1949		28	0.36	18	0.00	21	0.19	20	0.56	9	0.60	14	0.58
Indjic 1988		75	0.24	55	0.00	72	0.03	83	0.03	73	0.04	83	0.03
Kapell 1951		61	0.27	39	0.00	70	0.06	51	0.06	73	0.04	58	0.05
Kissin 1993		82	0.14	58	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	85	0.02	87	0.02
Kushner 1989		41	0.32	67	0.00	51	0.08	45	0.08	74	0.04	48	0.06
Luisada 1991		31	0.36	37	0.00	38	0.06	40	0.15	45	0.09	33	0.12
Lushtak 2004		24	0.38	19	0.00	29	0.10	26	0.40	34	0.16	25	0.25
Malcuzynski 1961		57	0.29	81	0.00	59	0.06	52	0.06	83	0.03	70	0.04
Magaloff 1978		17	0.42	15	0.00	22	0.13	21	0.55	37	0.18	23	0.31
Magin 1975		78	0.21	70	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.03	81	0.03
Michalowski 1933		83	0.14	76	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.03	82	0.03
Milkina 1970		49	0.31	62	0.00	56	0.06	55	0.06	76	0.03	68	0.04
Mohovich 1999		1	0.51	2	0.18	2	0.30	1	0.81	7	0.66	1	0.73
Moravec 1969		15	0.42	9	0.02	15	0.13	22	0.52	22	0.33	19	0.41
Morozova 2008		46	0.31	44	0.00	33	0.06	36	0.21	78	0.03	44	0.08
Neighaus 1950		59	0.28	85	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.13	62	0.04	46	0.07
Niedzielski 1931		67	0.26	86	0.00	46	0.06	59	0.06	71	0.04	57	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		48	0.31	50	0.00	52	0.08	46	0.08	60	0.04	50	0.06
Osinska 1989		30	0.36	54	0.00	39	0.07	41	0.15	50	0.05	42	0.09
Pachmann 1927		79	0.21	73	0.00	80	0.05	73	0.05	71	0.04	71	0.04
Paderewski 1930		88	0.00	77	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.01	89	0.01
Perlemuter 1992		73	0.25	24	0.00	67	0.04	74	0.04	54	0.06	55	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		85	0.08	88	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.02
Poblocka 1999		2	0.49	5	0.05	3	0.27	2	0.77	5	0.64	5	0.70
Rabcewiczowa 1932		45	0.31	74	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.11	49	0.06	43	0.08
Rachmaninoff 1923		14	0.43	20	0.00	11	0.17	11	0.66	14	0.54	12	0.60
Rangell 2001		64	0.26	79	0.00	62	0.05	71	0.05	75	0.03	77	0.04
Richter 1976		53	0.30	34	0.00	58	0.06	61	0.06	53	0.06	49	0.06
Rosen 1989		19	0.41	12	0.01	16	0.13	19	0.58	34	0.18	22	0.32
Rosenthal 1930		8	0.44	6	0.05	6	0.20	8	0.69	8	0.75	2	0.72
Rosenthal 1931		20	0.39	33	0.00	13	0.16	15	0.63	5	0.78	6	0.70
Rosenthal 1931b		21	0.39	16	0.00	18	0.12	17	0.58	5	0.77	8	0.67
Rosenthal 1931c		27	0.37	28	0.00	24	0.10	23	0.50	14	0.54	17	0.52
Rosenthal 1931d		22	0.39	56	0.00	17	0.10	18	0.58	6	0.75	10	0.66
Rossi 2007		86	0.04	43	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	90	0.01	88	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		33	0.36	26	0.00	34	0.06	34	0.22	42	0.09	31	0.14
Rubinstein 1952		50	0.30	31	0.00	57	0.07	47	0.07	80	0.03	66	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		26	0.38	23	0.00	28	0.14	25	0.40	47	0.08	30	0.18
Schilhawsky 1960		39	0.33	59	0.00	48	0.07	48	0.07	48	0.06	51	0.06
Shebanova 2002		68	0.25	52	0.00	68	0.05	69	0.05	63	0.06	61	0.05
Smith 1975		12	0.43	14	0.01	20	0.17	13	0.64	14	0.55	13	0.59
Sokolov 2002		71	0.25	72	0.00	73	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.03	80	0.03
Sztompka 1959		69	0.25	64	0.00	61	0.05	68	0.05	80	0.04	72	0.04
Tomsic 1995		72	0.25	38	0.00	60	0.06	60	0.06	75	0.04	59	0.05
Uninsky 1932		55	0.29	48	0.00	53	0.07	50	0.07	52	0.05	52	0.06
Uninsky 1971		5	0.46	8	0.02	5	0.21	5	0.73	9	0.58	11	0.65
Wasowski 1980		66	0.26	65	0.00	64	0.04	75	0.04	77	0.04	67	0.04
Zak 1937		29	0.36	30	0.00	35	0.07	33	0.24	54	0.05	36	0.11
Zak 1951		32	0.36	35	0.00	36	0.08	35	0.21	50	0.06	37	0.11
Random 1		90	-0.11	89	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01
Random 2		87	0.03	78	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	16	0.38	38	0.11
Random 3		89	-0.07	75	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	37	0.16	53	0.06

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).