Perlemuter 1992

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		45	0.33	61	0.00	48	0.04	70	0.04	45	0.06	62	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		78	0.20	78	0.00	77	0.04	77	0.04	73	0.03	81	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		16	0.39	71	0.00	20	0.08	18	0.45	33	0.27	14	0.35
Bacha 2000		87	0.15	47	0.00	86	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.03	77	0.03
Badura 1965		65	0.29	50	0.00	59	0.04	71	0.04	49	0.05	72	0.04
Barbosa 1983		60	0.30	48	0.00	64	0.06	56	0.06	75	0.04	60	0.05
Biret 1990		74	0.24	88	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	78	0.03	82	0.03
Blet 2003		25	0.38	37	0.00	26	0.08	21	0.40	33	0.29	16	0.34
Block 1995		21	0.39	6	0.01	8	0.08	12	0.52	35	0.26	13	0.37
Blumental 1952		69	0.27	18	0.00	55	0.04	69	0.04	75	0.04	74	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		6	0.44	46	0.00	4	0.14	2	0.65	30	0.29	9	0.43
Brailowsky 1960		71	0.25	45	0.00	72	0.06	54	0.06	74	0.04	50	0.05
Bunin 1987		48	0.32	49	0.00	65	0.06	55	0.06	62	0.04	63	0.05
Bunin 1987b		53	0.32	58	0.00	66	0.08	45	0.08	58	0.05	47	0.06
Chiu 1999		51	0.32	69	0.00	63	0.06	48	0.06	68	0.04	52	0.05
Cohen 1997		57	0.31	51	0.00	49	0.04	75	0.04	53	0.05	75	0.04
Cortot 1951		86	0.15	72	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	72	0.03	89	0.02
Csalog 1996		33	0.35	34	0.00	34	0.06	33	0.22	50	0.07	35	0.12
Czerny 1949		83	0.16	75	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.02	87	0.02
Czerny 1990		42	0.33	64	0.00	52	0.05	57	0.05	74	0.04	76	0.04
Duchoud 2007		77	0.21	60	0.00	74	0.04	73	0.04	60	0.05	71	0.04
Ezaki 2006		67	0.28	28	0.00	68	0.05	66	0.05	59	0.06	49	0.05
Falvay 1989		63	0.29	56	0.00	69	0.06	50	0.06	77	0.04	53	0.05
Farrell 1958		85	0.16	85	0.00	85	0.03	82	0.03	84	0.02	86	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		84	0.16	89	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	65	0.05	70	0.04
Fliere 1977		1	0.55	1	0.67	1	0.66	1	0.85	14	0.56	1	0.69
Fou 1978		36	0.35	25	0.00	30	0.06	31	0.27	76	0.03	38	0.09
Francois 1956		26	0.38	10	0.01	19	0.08	15	0.47	14	0.62	3	0.54
Friedman 1923		32	0.36	15	0.01	27	0.06	24	0.39	28	0.38	12	0.38
Friedman 1923b		34	0.35	23	0.00	28	0.09	25	0.37	34	0.33	15	0.35
Friedman 1930		14	0.40	9	0.01	9	0.09	6	0.60	21	0.50	2	0.55
Garcia 2007		46	0.33	30	0.00	35	0.06	32	0.24	30	0.26	20	0.25
Garcia 2007b		43	0.33	73	0.00	53	0.05	59	0.05	56	0.05	65	0.05
Gierzod 1998		35	0.35	26	0.00	22	0.08	28	0.33	62	0.05	31	0.13
Gornostaeva 1994		12	0.42	22	0.00	11	0.09	13	0.52	33	0.35	10	0.43
Groot 1988		17	0.39	54	0.00	23	0.09	19	0.45	60	0.04	32	0.13
Harasiewicz 1955		8	0.44	20	0.00	13	0.09	9	0.56	76	0.04	28	0.15
Hatto 1993		58	0.31	81	0.00	33	0.06	37	0.18	79	0.04	45	0.08
Hatto 1997		72	0.24	82	0.00	71	0.07	46	0.07	86	0.03	61	0.05
Horowitz 1949		39	0.34	36	0.00	60	0.05	67	0.05	41	0.13	39	0.08
Indjic 1988		61	0.30	40	0.00	38	0.07	41	0.13	64	0.05	40	0.08
Kapell 1951		68	0.27	76	0.00	73	0.05	68	0.05	79	0.04	67	0.04
Kissin 1993		23	0.38	52	0.00	17	0.09	26	0.36	48	0.08	26	0.17
Kushner 1989		7	0.44	53	0.00	14	0.13	7	0.59	47	0.08	22	0.22
Luisada 1991		18	0.39	31	0.00	25	0.08	27	0.34	58	0.06	29	0.14
Lushtak 2004		66	0.28	57	0.00	62	0.06	53	0.06	77	0.03	73	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		15	0.40	24	0.00	24	0.07	23	0.39	53	0.05	30	0.14
Magaloff 1978		10	0.42	4	0.02	10	0.08	16	0.47	42	0.12	21	0.24
Magin 1975		5	0.44	11	0.01	6	0.09	11	0.53	26	0.37	7	0.44
Michalowski 1933		47	0.33	13	0.01	41	0.05	42	0.13	33	0.26	24	0.18
Milkina 1970		76	0.22	90	0.00	78	0.05	62	0.05	80	0.03	68	0.04
Mohovich 1999		20	0.39	39	0.00	21	0.10	14	0.52	42	0.09	23	0.22
Moravec 1969		56	0.31	41	0.00	58	0.04	74	0.04	79	0.03	78	0.03
Morozova 2008		38	0.34	5	0.02	31	0.07	35	0.20	76	0.03	42	0.08
Neighaus 1950		29	0.37	35	0.00	32	0.06	29	0.28	48	0.06	33	0.13
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.29	42	0.00	54	0.05	61	0.05	51	0.05	55	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		13	0.41	16	0.01	12	0.09	10	0.54	44	0.12	19	0.25
Osinska 1989		9	0.43	55	0.00	7	0.08	8	0.59	32	0.29	11	0.41
Pachmann 1927		24	0.38	17	0.00	39	0.08	39	0.18	27	0.36	18	0.25
Paderewski 1930		19	0.39	21	0.00	15	0.10	20	0.44	11	0.59	4	0.51
Perlemuter 1992		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Pierdomenico 2008		41	0.34	29	0.00	61	0.05	64	0.05	62	0.04	66	0.04
Poblocka 1999		31	0.36	38	0.00	46	0.06	52	0.06	73	0.04	51	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		55	0.31	74	0.00	45	0.05	65	0.05	58	0.06	56	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		75	0.23	19	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.11	66	0.04	46	0.07
Rangell 2001		62	0.30	80	0.00	67	0.06	47	0.06	69	0.04	64	0.05
Richter 1976		30	0.36	65	0.00	50	0.05	58	0.05	67	0.05	59	0.05
Rosen 1989		4	0.44	2	0.08	3	0.33	4	0.63	18	0.39	6	0.50
Rosenthal 1930		70	0.26	7	0.01	43	0.05	43	0.11	48	0.06	44	0.08
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.17	44	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	72	0.04	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.17	43	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		79	0.20	87	0.00	75	0.04	76	0.04	75	0.03	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.17	86	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.03	83	0.03
Rossi 2007		50	0.32	8	0.01	42	0.05	40	0.14	4	0.64	17	0.30
Rubinstein 1939		73	0.24	63	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	78	0.03	79	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		11	0.42	12	0.01	16	0.08	22	0.40	50	0.08	25	0.18
Rubinstein 1966		28	0.37	83	0.00	37	0.07	38	0.18	66	0.04	41	0.08
Schilhawsky 1960		37	0.35	62	0.00	47	0.05	60	0.05	46	0.07	48	0.06
Shebanova 2002		3	0.45	3	0.03	2	0.27	5	0.62	34	0.31	8	0.44
Smith 1975		59	0.30	59	0.00	70	0.06	49	0.06	61	0.05	54	0.05
Sokolov 2002		40	0.34	32	0.00	29	0.06	34	0.20	53	0.05	36	0.10
Sztompka 1959		2	0.46	33	0.00	5	0.13	3	0.64	25	0.39	5	0.50
Tomsic 1995		49	0.32	84	0.00	51	0.05	63	0.05	57	0.05	58	0.05
Uninsky 1932		44	0.33	66	0.00	40	0.05	36	0.20	81	0.03	43	0.08
Uninsky 1971		22	0.39	27	0.00	18	0.08	17	0.47	55	0.06	27	0.17
Wasowski 1980		27	0.38	67	0.00	36	0.09	30	0.28	54	0.05	34	0.12
Zak 1937		54	0.32	68	0.00	57	0.06	51	0.06	75	0.04	57	0.05
Zak 1951		52	0.32	70	0.00	56	0.04	72	0.04	71	0.04	69	0.04
Random 1		89	-0.03	77	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	73	0.02	88	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.07	79	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	85	0.02	90	0.01
Random 3		88	0.01	14	0.01	88	0.02	88	0.02	3	0.53	37	0.10

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).