Chiu 1999

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		34	0.40	25	0.00	59	0.05	57	0.05	35	0.22	50	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		64	0.32	39	0.00	73	0.04	66	0.04	69	0.04	72	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		23	0.43	37	0.00	38	0.05	36	0.17	36	0.25	33	0.21
Bacha 2000		66	0.32	5	0.02	26	0.06	45	0.11	34	0.21	40	0.15
Badura 1965		71	0.31	54	0.00	64	0.06	48	0.06	31	0.21	48	0.11
Barbosa 1983		16	0.46	62	0.00	12	0.11	17	0.48	26	0.37	18	0.42
Biret 1990		28	0.41	65	0.00	36	0.06	29	0.24	27	0.43	24	0.32
Blet 2003		49	0.37	57	0.00	62	0.05	52	0.05	43	0.15	54	0.09
Block 1995		52	0.36	26	0.00	46	0.06	46	0.06	48	0.07	61	0.06
Blumental 1952		43	0.38	79	0.00	42	0.05	38	0.16	37	0.20	37	0.18
Boshniakovich 1969		70	0.31	86	0.00	66	0.05	63	0.05	70	0.04	74	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		79	0.27	67	0.00	76	0.04	73	0.04	55	0.06	63	0.05
Bunin 1987		54	0.35	28	0.00	43	0.05	40	0.14	30	0.30	35	0.20
Bunin 1987b		48	0.37	19	0.00	25	0.07	26	0.27	26	0.41	22	0.33
Chiu 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Cohen 1997		69	0.31	31	0.00	77	0.04	77	0.04	50	0.06	68	0.05
Cortot 1951		84	0.24	40	0.00	88	0.04	78	0.04	62	0.05	80	0.04
Csalog 1996		17	0.45	30	0.00	16	0.13	13	0.52	4	0.61	6	0.56
Czerny 1949		80	0.27	58	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	72	0.04	87	0.03
Czerny 1990		6	0.48	4	0.02	6	0.12	8	0.58	26	0.52	7	0.55
Duchoud 2007		19	0.45	6	0.02	8	0.12	6	0.58	2	0.73	3	0.65
Ezaki 2006		62	0.33	87	0.00	71	0.04	71	0.04	76	0.04	69	0.04
Falvay 1989		22	0.44	72	0.00	29	0.07	24	0.28	43	0.11	36	0.18
Farrell 1958		42	0.38	49	0.00	52	0.04	72	0.04	30	0.26	49	0.10
Ferenczy 1958		81	0.25	84	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	45	0.18	58	0.07
Fliere 1977		3	0.53	21	0.00	3	0.22	5	0.64	17	0.51	5	0.57
Fou 1978		21	0.44	60	0.00	34	0.05	25	0.27	39	0.24	31	0.25
Francois 1956		83	0.24	88	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	77	0.03	91	0.02
Friedman 1923		36	0.39	18	0.00	32	0.05	33	0.21	28	0.39	27	0.29
Friedman 1923b		39	0.38	3	0.03	33	0.06	35	0.17	27	0.42	28	0.27
Friedman 1930		14	0.46	13	0.01	18	0.09	15	0.50	13	0.57	10	0.53
Garcia 2007		72	0.31	44	0.00	48	0.05	58	0.05	29	0.30	46	0.12
Garcia 2007b		45	0.38	47	0.00	35	0.05	32	0.22	21	0.47	25	0.32
Gierzod 1998		61	0.33	55	0.00	61	0.05	60	0.05	55	0.06	67	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		58	0.34	38	0.00	49	0.05	56	0.05	65	0.04	77	0.04
Groot 1988		29	0.41	7	0.01	11	0.12	11	0.54	27	0.36	17	0.44
Harasiewicz 1955		11	0.47	16	0.00	28	0.06	30	0.23	54	0.06	47	0.12
Hatto 1993		10	0.47	56	0.00	14	0.14	9	0.55	22	0.41	14	0.47
Hatto 1997		25	0.41	50	0.00	40	0.06	37	0.17	42	0.11	44	0.14
Horowitz 1949		47	0.37	17	0.00	37	0.04	42	0.13	17	0.53	30	0.26
Indjic 1988		18	0.45	45	0.00	15	0.10	14	0.51	27	0.39	15	0.45
Kapell 1951		8	0.47	10	0.01	5	0.16	16	0.50	19	0.39	16	0.44
Kissin 1993		35	0.39	46	0.00	53	0.04	64	0.04	44	0.18	57	0.08
Kushner 1989		20	0.45	23	0.00	27	0.06	31	0.22	45	0.10	41	0.15
Luisada 1991		37	0.39	15	0.01	44	0.06	43	0.13	57	0.06	52	0.09
Lushtak 2004		40	0.38	52	0.00	65	0.05	51	0.05	39	0.10	59	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		44	0.38	63	0.00	60	0.05	53	0.05	67	0.05	65	0.05
Magaloff 1978		31	0.40	48	0.00	19	0.11	19	0.42	25	0.38	20	0.40
Magin 1975		38	0.39	20	0.00	39	0.05	34	0.18	38	0.23	34	0.20
Michalowski 1933		75	0.30	66	0.00	30	0.06	39	0.15	17	0.43	32	0.25
Milkina 1970		46	0.38	69	0.00	45	0.07	41	0.14	41	0.19	39	0.16
Mohovich 1999		60	0.34	68	0.00	69	0.05	54	0.05	80	0.04	75	0.04
Moravec 1969		30	0.41	12	0.01	10	0.13	21	0.34	33	0.30	23	0.32
Morozova 2008		4	0.50	9	0.01	4	0.29	3	0.69	4	0.63	2	0.66
Neighaus 1950		56	0.35	22	0.00	57	0.04	74	0.04	64	0.04	79	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		65	0.32	80	0.00	56	0.04	75	0.04	38	0.20	53	0.09
Ohlsson 1999		7	0.48	24	0.00	13	0.11	10	0.55	12	0.48	11	0.51
Osinska 1989		33	0.40	43	0.00	24	0.06	27	0.25	45	0.11	38	0.17
Pachmann 1927		55	0.35	35	0.00	63	0.06	50	0.06	33	0.28	45	0.13
Paderewski 1930		85	0.23	90	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	81	0.03	85	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		68	0.32	51	0.00	74	0.04	69	0.04	49	0.06	62	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		41	0.38	42	0.00	58	0.05	55	0.05	22	0.40	42	0.14
Poblocka 1999		27	0.41	59	0.00	31	0.05	28	0.25	36	0.28	29	0.26
Rabcewiczowa 1932		76	0.29	81	0.00	70	0.06	49	0.06	55	0.06	60	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		51	0.36	32	0.00	23	0.09	22	0.32	28	0.35	21	0.33
Rangell 2001		59	0.34	33	0.00	51	0.04	67	0.04	42	0.19	56	0.09
Richter 1976		5	0.50	41	0.00	17	0.12	12	0.52	27	0.48	12	0.50
Rosen 1989		9	0.47	11	0.01	9	0.12	7	0.58	9	0.51	9	0.54
Rosenthal 1930		78	0.28	78	0.00	82	0.03	80	0.03	68	0.04	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.21	91	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	61	0.05	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.21	82	0.00	87	0.04	79	0.04	59	0.04	81	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		67	0.32	61	0.00	54	0.04	76	0.04	29	0.26	51	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.19	76	0.00	79	0.03	83	0.03	51	0.05	78	0.04
Rossi 2007		82	0.25	53	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	47	0.07	64	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		57	0.35	36	0.00	68	0.05	61	0.05	61	0.04	70	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		63	0.33	77	0.00	67	0.05	59	0.05	71	0.04	82	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		24	0.42	83	0.00	41	0.05	44	0.12	53	0.07	55	0.09
Schilhawsky 1960		32	0.40	75	0.00	47	0.05	62	0.05	13	0.42	43	0.14
Shebanova 2002		2	0.54	2	0.03	2	0.37	2	0.77	7	0.69	1	0.73
Smith 1975		74	0.30	89	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	68	0.04	84	0.03
Sokolov 2002		73	0.30	29	0.00	75	0.04	70	0.04	74	0.03	83	0.03
Sztompka 1959		26	0.41	27	0.00	21	0.10	23	0.30	35	0.32	26	0.31
Tomsic 1995		77	0.29	73	0.00	72	0.04	68	0.04	69	0.04	71	0.04
Uninsky 1932		53	0.36	74	0.00	55	0.04	65	0.04	63	0.04	73	0.04
Uninsky 1971		50	0.36	71	0.00	50	0.06	47	0.06	64	0.05	66	0.05
Wasowski 1980		13	0.46	8	0.01	7	0.12	4	0.65	14	0.55	4	0.60
Zak 1937		12	0.46	34	0.00	20	0.13	18	0.47	15	0.50	13	0.48
Zak 1951		15	0.46	14	0.01	22	0.09	20	0.38	17	0.44	19	0.41
Average		1	0.65	1	0.72	1	0.71	1	0.90	31	0.33	8	0.54
Random 1		91	-0.04	85	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	47	0.05	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.01	64	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	61	0.05	89	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.02	70	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	42	0.13	76	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).