Uninsky 1932

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		68	0.31	73	0.00	77	0.04	65	0.04	69	0.04	76	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		80	0.26	53	0.00	73	0.06	49	0.06	56	0.06	64	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		7	0.49	16	0.00	14	0.16	10	0.67	11	0.64	7	0.65
Bacha 2000		69	0.31	74	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.09	26	0.28	36	0.16
Badura 1965		60	0.32	23	0.00	34	0.08	39	0.14	32	0.20	35	0.17
Barbosa 1983		21	0.40	6	0.02	21	0.09	18	0.51	36	0.23	21	0.34
Biret 1990		46	0.34	67	0.00	32	0.09	33	0.24	32	0.37	24	0.30
Blet 2003		43	0.35	71	0.00	66	0.03	83	0.03	45	0.10	67	0.05
Block 1995		29	0.38	15	0.01	38	0.06	34	0.22	40	0.17	33	0.19
Blumental 1952		41	0.35	14	0.01	42	0.06	43	0.14	65	0.05	58	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		34	0.36	30	0.00	24	0.09	23	0.40	56	0.06	39	0.15
Brailowsky 1960		75	0.29	52	0.00	78	0.05	53	0.05	51	0.07	61	0.06
Bunin 1987		42	0.35	35	0.00	46	0.06	48	0.06	40	0.16	49	0.10
Bunin 1987b		50	0.34	60	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	42	0.18	45	0.12
Chiu 1999		35	0.36	63	0.00	52	0.04	63	0.04	65	0.04	71	0.04
Cohen 1997		81	0.25	91	0.00	84	0.04	67	0.04	63	0.04	80	0.04
Cortot 1951		72	0.30	56	0.00	76	0.03	73	0.03	32	0.25	55	0.09
Csalog 1996		55	0.33	44	0.00	47	0.04	61	0.04	26	0.26	48	0.10
Czerny 1949		58	0.33	40	0.00	64	0.03	81	0.03	39	0.25	53	0.09
Czerny 1990		10	0.47	8	0.01	10	0.20	6	0.70	19	0.66	5	0.68
Duchoud 2007		79	0.27	25	0.00	75	0.03	79	0.03	54	0.06	77	0.04
Ezaki 2006		54	0.33	72	0.00	61	0.06	46	0.06	78	0.04	65	0.05
Falvay 1989		30	0.37	84	0.00	49	0.04	68	0.04	54	0.05	72	0.04
Farrell 1958		73	0.29	79	0.00	70	0.05	55	0.05	53	0.06	66	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		85	0.20	36	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	61	0.05	83	0.03
Fliere 1977		3	0.50	11	0.01	7	0.17	3	0.72	16	0.54	8	0.62
Fou 1978		12	0.46	33	0.00	13	0.15	12	0.61	17	0.52	12	0.56
Francois 1956		83	0.22	89	0.00	82	0.03	80	0.03	81	0.03	90	0.03
Friedman 1923		48	0.34	82	0.00	53	0.05	59	0.05	34	0.28	46	0.12
Friedman 1923b		38	0.36	80	0.00	41	0.07	42	0.14	28	0.41	31	0.24
Friedman 1930		64	0.31	48	0.00	55	0.05	57	0.05	38	0.15	51	0.09
Garcia 2007		67	0.31	70	0.00	71	0.05	60	0.05	49	0.06	68	0.05
Garcia 2007b		59	0.32	55	0.00	60	0.06	50	0.06	54	0.05	70	0.05
Gierzod 1998		63	0.32	7	0.01	23	0.09	26	0.34	38	0.19	29	0.25
Gornostaeva 1994		77	0.28	76	0.00	69	0.03	74	0.03	72	0.03	86	0.03
Groot 1988		23	0.39	47	0.00	39	0.05	36	0.18	53	0.05	54	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		8	0.48	12	0.01	6	0.21	9	0.68	14	0.54	9	0.61
Hatto 1993		26	0.38	45	0.00	20	0.10	20	0.46	38	0.17	26	0.28
Hatto 1997		52	0.33	65	0.00	37	0.07	37	0.17	54	0.05	52	0.09
Horowitz 1949		28	0.38	66	0.00	50	0.04	66	0.04	25	0.49	40	0.14
Indjic 1988		25	0.39	81	0.00	22	0.09	21	0.43	36	0.24	22	0.32
Kapell 1951		13	0.46	20	0.00	18	0.19	15	0.54	28	0.30	17	0.40
Kissin 1993		6	0.49	2	0.05	2	0.17	5	0.70	9	0.76	1	0.73
Kushner 1989		22	0.40	21	0.00	26	0.09	22	0.42	53	0.06	37	0.16
Luisada 1991		18	0.43	10	0.01	27	0.08	28	0.29	35	0.22	28	0.25
Lushtak 2004		70	0.30	57	0.00	48	0.04	62	0.04	52	0.05	79	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		9	0.48	17	0.00	5	0.15	4	0.72	6	0.65	4	0.68
Magaloff 1978		17	0.43	38	0.00	12	0.17	13	0.58	10	0.56	11	0.57
Magin 1975		24	0.39	31	0.00	28	0.08	25	0.39	29	0.37	18	0.38
Michalowski 1933		51	0.34	37	0.00	58	0.04	69	0.04	11	0.48	41	0.14
Milkina 1970		37	0.36	50	0.00	36	0.07	30	0.26	40	0.23	30	0.24
Mohovich 1999		71	0.30	90	0.00	79	0.06	47	0.06	72	0.04	69	0.05
Moravec 1969		19	0.42	13	0.01	16	0.15	19	0.50	14	0.47	16	0.48
Morozova 2008		15	0.45	41	0.00	11	0.16	11	0.65	11	0.55	10	0.60
Neighaus 1950		62	0.32	61	0.00	74	0.04	71	0.04	76	0.03	88	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		36	0.36	51	0.00	51	0.05	54	0.05	24	0.34	42	0.13
Ohlsson 1999		47	0.34	27	0.00	29	0.08	32	0.25	44	0.13	34	0.18
Osinska 1989		57	0.33	49	0.00	35	0.06	38	0.15	75	0.04	57	0.08
Pachmann 1927		44	0.35	83	0.00	33	0.07	35	0.19	20	0.47	23	0.30
Paderewski 1930		74	0.29	46	0.00	72	0.05	51	0.05	31	0.36	43	0.13
Perlemuter 1992		56	0.33	32	0.00	67	0.03	82	0.03	37	0.20	56	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		32	0.37	22	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.14	28	0.34	32	0.22
Poblocka 1999		20	0.41	18	0.00	19	0.09	27	0.32	41	0.21	27	0.26
Rabcewiczowa 1932		66	0.31	43	0.00	62	0.03	78	0.03	54	0.06	74	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		11	0.47	3	0.04	9	0.20	16	0.53	9	0.58	13	0.55
Rangell 2001		33	0.37	26	0.00	57	0.04	70	0.04	40	0.23	50	0.10
Richter 1976		2	0.51	5	0.02	4	0.19	8	0.68	14	0.64	6	0.66
Rosen 1989		53	0.33	68	0.00	68	0.03	72	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		76	0.29	54	0.00	81	0.03	76	0.03	56	0.05	78	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.19	77	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	55	0.05	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.19	85	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	49	0.06	81	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		82	0.25	62	0.00	83	0.03	75	0.03	68	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.17	86	0.00	88	0.03	77	0.03	74	0.04	87	0.03
Rossi 2007		84	0.21	42	0.00	63	0.03	84	0.03	16	0.46	44	0.12
Rubinstein 1939		40	0.35	34	0.00	30	0.08	31	0.26	26	0.30	25	0.28
Rubinstein 1952		39	0.36	39	0.00	40	0.06	40	0.14	48	0.08	47	0.11
Rubinstein 1966		27	0.38	69	0.00	25	0.09	24	0.40	59	0.06	38	0.15
Schilhawsky 1960		65	0.31	78	0.00	56	0.04	64	0.04	40	0.13	59	0.07
Shebanova 2002		14	0.45	24	0.00	17	0.15	17	0.53	39	0.27	19	0.38
Smith 1975		78	0.28	19	0.00	80	0.05	56	0.05	67	0.04	73	0.04
Sokolov 2002		45	0.34	28	0.00	31	0.09	29	0.27	21	0.44	20	0.34
Sztompka 1959		5	0.49	9	0.01	8	0.18	7	0.69	7	0.70	3	0.69
Tomsic 1995		61	0.32	87	0.00	59	0.05	52	0.05	47	0.08	63	0.06
Uninsky 1932		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Uninsky 1971		4	0.50	4	0.04	3	0.16	2	0.74	2	0.70	2	0.72
Wasowski 1980		16	0.45	29	0.00	15	0.17	14	0.56	19	0.51	14	0.53
Zak 1937		31	0.37	75	0.00	54	0.05	58	0.05	47	0.07	62	0.06
Zak 1951		49	0.34	88	0.00	65	0.03	85	0.03	56	0.05	75	0.04
Average		1	0.61	1	0.68	1	0.68	1	0.88	33	0.31	15	0.52
Random 1		90	-0.03	59	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	42	0.09	85	0.03
Random 2		89	0.03	64	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	28	0.26	60	0.07
Random 3		91	-0.04	58	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	51	0.05	91	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).