Badura 1965

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		15	0.37	9	0.01	16	0.09	16	0.46	31	0.30	9	0.37
Anderszewski 2003		4	0.42	2	0.06	3	0.30	5	0.62	17	0.57	2	0.59
Ashkenazy 1981		10	0.38	14	0.01	15	0.12	14	0.47	41	0.19	11	0.30
Bacha 2000		42	0.30	37	0.00	42	0.06	33	0.20	25	0.30	14	0.24
Badura 1965		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Barbosa 1983		60	0.28	88	0.00	70	0.02	85	0.02	74	0.04	80	0.03
Biret 1990		76	0.22	56	0.00	72	0.03	77	0.03	82	0.03	83	0.03
Blet 2003		45	0.30	20	0.00	40	0.05	46	0.09	56	0.05	48	0.07
Block 1995		25	0.34	80	0.00	29	0.06	22	0.34	58	0.05	32	0.13
Blumental 1952		31	0.33	47	0.00	46	0.05	49	0.05	62	0.05	54	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		29	0.33	66	0.00	19	0.10	19	0.41	83	0.04	33	0.13
Brailowsky 1960		24	0.34	8	0.01	26	0.06	27	0.29	38	0.18	17	0.23
Bunin 1987		62	0.27	50	0.00	52	0.04	54	0.04	45	0.10	50	0.06
Bunin 1987b		53	0.29	70	0.00	51	0.04	56	0.04	48	0.07	52	0.05
Chiu 1999		39	0.31	19	0.00	32	0.06	31	0.21	48	0.06	35	0.11
Cohen 1997		79	0.22	85	0.00	79	0.03	75	0.03	66	0.04	82	0.03
Cortot 1951		85	0.18	57	0.00	86	0.02	89	0.02	71	0.03	89	0.02
Csalog 1996		26	0.34	39	0.00	27	0.06	29	0.25	57	0.06	34	0.12
Czerny 1949		80	0.22	90	0.00	81	0.05	51	0.05	53	0.06	53	0.05
Czerny 1990		37	0.31	21	0.00	31	0.07	30	0.22	71	0.04	40	0.09
Duchoud 2007		69	0.25	28	0.00	22	0.08	28	0.29	32	0.25	13	0.27
Ezaki 2006		12	0.38	23	0.00	17	0.09	17	0.45	47	0.09	19	0.20
Falvay 1989		14	0.37	18	0.00	12	0.15	11	0.53	48	0.06	22	0.18
Farrell 1958		65	0.26	69	0.00	75	0.04	61	0.04	59	0.05	59	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		38	0.31	6	0.02	45	0.06	44	0.11	30	0.53	16	0.24
Fliere 1977		13	0.38	46	0.00	23	0.07	24	0.33	84	0.03	36	0.10
Fou 1978		3	0.43	4	0.04	5	0.30	3	0.69	22	0.45	3	0.56
Francois 1956		87	0.17	40	0.00	85	0.03	79	0.03	86	0.02	90	0.02
Friedman 1923		11	0.38	30	0.00	10	0.14	9	0.55	18	0.54	5	0.54
Friedman 1923b		7	0.39	41	0.00	8	0.19	8	0.57	23	0.52	4	0.54
Friedman 1930		18	0.35	24	0.00	25	0.06	21	0.36	40	0.13	18	0.22
Garcia 2007		82	0.21	51	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	64	0.05	63	0.04
Garcia 2007b		77	0.22	58	0.00	71	0.02	86	0.02	47	0.06	87	0.03
Gierzod 1998		6	0.39	25	0.00	7	0.20	4	0.66	29	0.31	6	0.45
Gornostaeva 1994		59	0.28	75	0.00	57	0.04	53	0.04	57	0.05	66	0.04
Groot 1988		34	0.32	15	0.01	37	0.06	43	0.11	88	0.03	51	0.06
Harasiewicz 1955		21	0.34	43	0.00	58	0.04	55	0.04	59	0.05	70	0.04
Hatto 1993		22	0.34	87	0.00	47	0.05	48	0.05	73	0.04	69	0.04
Hatto 1997		33	0.32	55	0.00	34	0.08	37	0.16	69	0.04	44	0.08
Horowitz 1949		84	0.19	45	0.00	83	0.03	69	0.03	74	0.03	79	0.03
Indjic 1988		27	0.33	59	0.00	48	0.09	45	0.09	68	0.05	47	0.07
Kapell 1951		70	0.25	64	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	73	0.04	78	0.03
Kissin 1993		19	0.35	72	0.00	24	0.09	26	0.31	54	0.07	27	0.15
Kushner 1989		5	0.40	7	0.01	4	0.26	6	0.62	31	0.30	7	0.43
Luisada 1991		49	0.29	33	0.00	67	0.02	88	0.02	70	0.05	72	0.03
Lushtak 2004		46	0.30	60	0.00	18	0.07	23	0.34	38	0.10	24	0.18
Malcuzynski 1961		8	0.38	10	0.01	11	0.15	12	0.52	41	0.17	10	0.30
Magaloff 1978		55	0.29	34	0.00	56	0.04	59	0.04	87	0.03	75	0.03
Magin 1975		41	0.30	76	0.00	68	0.03	67	0.03	59	0.05	57	0.04
Michalowski 1933		74	0.23	53	0.00	69	0.03	84	0.03	66	0.05	62	0.04
Milkina 1970		28	0.33	54	0.00	28	0.06	25	0.31	51	0.06	29	0.14
Mohovich 1999		61	0.28	82	0.00	60	0.04	63	0.04	63	0.04	65	0.04
Moravec 1969		50	0.29	61	0.00	62	0.03	78	0.03	81	0.03	71	0.03
Morozova 2008		2	0.43	3	0.05	2	0.25	2	0.71	12	0.54	1	0.62
Neighaus 1950		73	0.24	67	0.00	63	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.03	84	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		63	0.26	5	0.03	41	0.05	40	0.14	43	0.13	31	0.13
Ohlsson 1999		16	0.36	16	0.01	6	0.19	7	0.57	24	0.33	8	0.43
Osinska 1989		52	0.29	62	0.00	33	0.06	35	0.17	54	0.05	37	0.09
Pachmann 1927		66	0.26	65	0.00	54	0.04	52	0.04	40	0.15	43	0.08
Paderewski 1930		83	0.19	48	0.00	84	0.04	64	0.04	56	0.05	60	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		54	0.29	52	0.00	59	0.05	50	0.05	72	0.04	55	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		86	0.17	91	0.00	87	0.03	68	0.03	71	0.04	77	0.03
Poblocka 1999		36	0.31	29	0.00	38	0.05	42	0.13	66	0.05	41	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		78	0.22	44	0.00	76	0.03	71	0.03	63	0.05	58	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		51	0.29	38	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	63	0.04	56	0.04
Rangell 2001		67	0.26	63	0.00	53	0.04	57	0.04	60	0.05	67	0.04
Richter 1976		35	0.32	17	0.01	36	0.05	41	0.13	64	0.05	42	0.08
Rosen 1989		23	0.34	83	0.00	14	0.11	15	0.46	55	0.05	28	0.15
Rosenthal 1930		48	0.29	49	0.00	64	0.03	72	0.03	58	0.05	64	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		40	0.31	22	0.00	39	0.05	38	0.15	21	0.56	12	0.29
Rosenthal 1931b		58	0.28	36	0.00	50	0.04	62	0.04	23	0.50	30	0.14
Rosenthal 1931c		71	0.25	73	0.00	73	0.03	76	0.03	70	0.03	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.21	81	0.00	80	0.04	60	0.04	58	0.05	68	0.04
Rossi 2007		88	0.08	71	0.00	88	0.03	70	0.03	69	0.04	74	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		44	0.30	86	0.00	49	0.07	47	0.07	49	0.05	49	0.06
Rubinstein 1952		75	0.23	74	0.00	78	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.03	86	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		9	0.38	13	0.01	9	0.17	10	0.54	43	0.11	15	0.24
Schilhawsky 1960		64	0.26	42	0.00	61	0.03	66	0.03	65	0.04	81	0.03
Shebanova 2002		20	0.34	89	0.00	20	0.08	20	0.40	47	0.08	23	0.18
Smith 1975		68	0.26	26	0.00	66	0.03	82	0.03	80	0.03	76	0.03
Sokolov 2002		72	0.24	68	0.00	82	0.03	73	0.03	81	0.03	73	0.03
Sztompka 1959		56	0.29	78	0.00	55	0.04	58	0.04	71	0.04	61	0.04
Tomsic 1995		30	0.33	11	0.01	21	0.09	18	0.41	57	0.06	26	0.16
Uninsky 1932		32	0.32	12	0.01	30	0.07	32	0.20	39	0.14	25	0.17
Uninsky 1971		17	0.36	32	0.00	13	0.13	13	0.50	46	0.08	20	0.20
Wasowski 1980		47	0.30	35	0.00	35	0.05	34	0.17	84	0.03	46	0.07
Zak 1937		57	0.29	27	0.00	44	0.07	39	0.15	59	0.05	38	0.09
Zak 1951		43	0.30	31	0.00	43	0.06	36	0.16	54	0.05	39	0.09
Average		1	0.51	1	0.63	1	0.62	1	0.86	77	0.04	21	0.19
Random 1		89	-0.01	77	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	28	0.31	45	0.08
Random 2		90	-0.08	84	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		91	-0.08	79	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	71	0.03	88	0.02

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).