Magaloff 1978

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		69	0.33	82	0.00	72	0.03	83	0.03	39	0.17	65	0.07
Anderszewski 2003		75	0.31	44	0.00	73	0.03	85	0.03	57	0.05	78	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		60	0.35	87	0.00	69	0.03	86	0.03	63	0.06	81	0.04
Bacha 2000		74	0.31	58	0.00	75	0.03	78	0.03	46	0.07	68	0.05
Badura 1965		80	0.29	61	0.00	79	0.03	87	0.03	59	0.04	89	0.03
Barbosa 1983		44	0.39	28	0.00	47	0.05	53	0.05	59	0.06	72	0.05
Biret 1990		49	0.37	32	0.00	56	0.05	54	0.05	35	0.33	51	0.13
Blet 2003		79	0.29	73	0.00	85	0.04	67	0.04	74	0.03	87	0.03
Block 1995		11	0.47	35	0.00	20	0.10	16	0.48	22	0.48	16	0.48
Blumental 1952		53	0.36	69	0.00	63	0.05	48	0.05	52	0.06	73	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		10	0.47	7	0.01	3	0.14	11	0.55	20	0.48	14	0.51
Brailowsky 1960		27	0.42	10	0.01	40	0.06	38	0.18	22	0.55	30	0.31
Bunin 1987		64	0.33	88	0.00	61	0.05	52	0.05	41	0.14	61	0.08
Bunin 1987b		70	0.33	89	0.00	60	0.04	66	0.04	46	0.09	66	0.06
Chiu 1999		35	0.40	70	0.00	25	0.08	25	0.38	19	0.42	25	0.40
Cohen 1997		61	0.34	37	0.00	76	0.03	73	0.03	34	0.39	56	0.11
Cortot 1951		37	0.40	41	0.00	30	0.06	27	0.33	3	0.71	17	0.48
Csalog 1996		40	0.39	20	0.00	34	0.06	35	0.22	30	0.23	38	0.22
Czerny 1949		78	0.29	55	0.00	74	0.03	81	0.03	43	0.19	60	0.08
Czerny 1990		58	0.35	42	0.00	38	0.06	42	0.14	41	0.17	49	0.15
Duchoud 2007		82	0.28	84	0.00	84	0.03	71	0.03	55	0.06	80	0.04
Ezaki 2006		22	0.42	17	0.00	31	0.06	32	0.27	39	0.34	32	0.30
Falvay 1989		63	0.33	4	0.01	49	0.05	57	0.05	69	0.05	70	0.05
Farrell 1958		76	0.31	85	0.00	71	0.02	88	0.02	64	0.05	84	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		88	0.19	60	0.00	88	0.03	68	0.03	64	0.05	79	0.04
Fliere 1977		2	0.60	2	0.05	2	0.65	2	0.85	2	0.78	1	0.81
Fou 1978		46	0.38	24	0.00	48	0.04	61	0.04	45	0.11	64	0.07
Francois 1956		67	0.33	67	0.00	77	0.03	69	0.03	26	0.32	57	0.10
Friedman 1923		24	0.42	52	0.00	24	0.10	20	0.40	11	0.64	15	0.51
Friedman 1923b		28	0.42	15	0.01	22	0.10	24	0.38	15	0.58	18	0.47
Friedman 1930		55	0.36	57	0.00	42	0.06	39	0.15	29	0.37	37	0.24
Garcia 2007		83	0.28	74	0.00	68	0.03	79	0.03	70	0.04	88	0.03
Garcia 2007b		84	0.28	80	0.00	70	0.03	82	0.03	52	0.05	83	0.04
Gierzod 1998		17	0.44	33	0.00	13	0.16	12	0.53	14	0.54	12	0.53
Gornostaeva 1994		13	0.46	5	0.01	19	0.11	21	0.39	18	0.54	20	0.46
Groot 1988		15	0.45	36	0.00	12	0.18	15	0.49	20	0.41	21	0.45
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.46	47	0.00	17	0.08	13	0.51	38	0.22	27	0.33
Hatto 1993		39	0.40	68	0.00	29	0.06	29	0.28	36	0.18	39	0.22
Hatto 1997		56	0.35	64	0.00	50	0.05	49	0.05	41	0.14	59	0.08
Horowitz 1949		50	0.37	81	0.00	64	0.05	50	0.05	22	0.50	44	0.16
Indjic 1988		47	0.38	62	0.00	45	0.07	40	0.14	43	0.16	46	0.15
Kapell 1951		71	0.33	75	0.00	81	0.03	74	0.03	63	0.05	76	0.04
Kissin 1993		34	0.40	19	0.00	28	0.07	28	0.32	25	0.53	24	0.41
Kushner 1989		16	0.44	65	0.00	26	0.07	23	0.39	46	0.09	42	0.19
Luisada 1991		51	0.37	22	0.00	65	0.05	55	0.05	69	0.05	69	0.05
Lushtak 2004		26	0.42	21	0.00	14	0.18	14	0.50	16	0.53	13	0.51
Malcuzynski 1961		8	0.49	18	0.00	5	0.16	3	0.70	7	0.63	2	0.66
Magaloff 1978		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Magin 1975		38	0.40	72	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	35	0.31	45	0.15
Michalowski 1933		65	0.33	9	0.01	41	0.06	41	0.14	12	0.47	35	0.26
Milkina 1970		81	0.28	78	0.00	66	0.03	70	0.03	54	0.06	77	0.04
Mohovich 1999		41	0.39	59	0.00	55	0.07	47	0.07	76	0.04	74	0.05
Moravec 1969		52	0.36	39	0.00	51	0.04	60	0.04	45	0.11	62	0.07
Morozova 2008		20	0.43	38	0.00	23	0.09	18	0.44	27	0.42	22	0.43
Neighaus 1950		32	0.41	26	0.00	35	0.07	31	0.28	24	0.37	29	0.32
Niedzielski 1931		59	0.35	29	0.00	57	0.04	63	0.04	48	0.05	75	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		6	0.49	12	0.01	8	0.13	7	0.62	7	0.54	6	0.58
Osinska 1989		3	0.53	23	0.00	4	0.14	4	0.69	11	0.62	4	0.65
Pachmann 1927		19	0.43	3	0.02	15	0.10	17	0.44	5	0.64	11	0.53
Paderewski 1930		77	0.30	14	0.01	44	0.06	45	0.12	15	0.56	34	0.26
Perlemuter 1992		23	0.42	30	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.12	17	0.47	36	0.24
Pierdomenico 2008		57	0.35	56	0.00	52	0.04	64	0.04	24	0.39	53	0.12
Poblocka 1999		14	0.45	27	0.00	21	0.10	22	0.39	28	0.43	23	0.41
Rabcewiczowa 1932		45	0.39	46	0.00	33	0.06	44	0.12	33	0.33	40	0.20
Rachmaninoff 1923		36	0.40	34	0.00	16	0.09	33	0.26	27	0.38	31	0.31
Rangell 2001		68	0.33	90	0.00	78	0.03	77	0.03	49	0.06	82	0.04
Richter 1976		5	0.51	53	0.00	7	0.19	5	0.66	12	0.66	3	0.66
Rosen 1989		4	0.51	6	0.01	6	0.14	9	0.56	7	0.57	10	0.56
Rosenthal 1930		48	0.38	54	0.00	58	0.04	65	0.04	16	0.60	48	0.15
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.26	79	0.00	82	0.03	76	0.03	33	0.39	55	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.26	91	0.00	87	0.05	58	0.05	36	0.29	54	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		30	0.41	31	0.00	27	0.06	26	0.34	7	0.66	19	0.47
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.26	76	0.00	86	0.03	80	0.03	30	0.27	58	0.09
Rossi 2007		54	0.36	40	0.00	53	0.04	62	0.04	6	0.61	43	0.16
Rubinstein 1939		62	0.34	63	0.00	62	0.04	59	0.04	39	0.13	63	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		9	0.48	11	0.01	10	0.12	8	0.61	19	0.53	9	0.57
Rubinstein 1966		33	0.40	45	0.00	36	0.05	30	0.28	47	0.08	47	0.15
Schilhawsky 1960		42	0.39	66	0.00	54	0.05	51	0.05	19	0.39	50	0.14
Shebanova 2002		7	0.49	16	0.01	9	0.12	6	0.63	18	0.52	8	0.57
Smith 1975		25	0.42	71	0.00	37	0.06	36	0.20	17	0.52	28	0.32
Sokolov 2002		43	0.39	50	0.00	59	0.05	56	0.05	35	0.30	52	0.12
Sztompka 1959		21	0.43	25	0.00	39	0.05	34	0.25	36	0.32	33	0.28
Tomsic 1995		73	0.32	43	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	72	0.04	86	0.03
Uninsky 1932		18	0.43	13	0.01	11	0.13	10	0.56	13	0.58	7	0.57
Uninsky 1971		29	0.42	8	0.01	18	0.09	19	0.41	29	0.35	26	0.38
Wasowski 1980		31	0.41	49	0.00	32	0.06	37	0.19	37	0.20	41	0.19
Zak 1937		66	0.33	48	0.00	67	0.03	72	0.03	46	0.08	71	0.05
Zak 1951		72	0.32	77	0.00	80	0.03	75	0.03	80	0.04	85	0.03
Average		1	0.65	1	0.76	1	0.75	1	0.90	20	0.46	5	0.64
Random 1		91	-0.07	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	70	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.02	83	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	58	0.05	90	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.01	51	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	16	0.36	67	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).