Biret 1990

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		17	0.70	45	0.00	32	0.06	26	0.24	61	0.04	48	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		20	0.70	6	0.04	14	0.12	18	0.38	17	0.30	17	0.34
Ashkenazy 1981		32	0.67	58	0.00	40	0.04	37	0.15	72	0.04	59	0.08
Bacha 2000		10	0.74	38	0.00	24	0.06	23	0.30	12	0.40	14	0.35
Badura 1965		77	0.51	9	0.02	84	0.04	63	0.04	56	0.05	82	0.04
Barbosa 1983		67	0.54	56	0.00	23	0.07	35	0.18	12	0.37	27	0.26
Biret 1990		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Blet 2003		45	0.63	7	0.04	18	0.08	24	0.27	10	0.39	19	0.32
Block 1995		82	0.49	43	0.00	43	0.04	42	0.09	39	0.12	49	0.10
Blumental 1952		8	0.75	13	0.01	10	0.09	9	0.53	6	0.39	9	0.45
Boshniakovich 1969		61	0.57	35	0.00	58	0.04	61	0.04	53	0.06	71	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		18	0.70	89	0.00	49	0.08	45	0.08	19	0.35	33	0.17
Bunin 1987		87	0.30	88	0.00	88	0.03	78	0.03	71	0.04	87	0.03
Bunin 1987b		88	0.28	85	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	72	0.04	84	0.03
Chiu 1999		31	0.68	65	0.00	42	0.04	44	0.09	23	0.25	38	0.15
Cohen 1997		55	0.58	79	0.00	76	0.03	88	0.03	17	0.35	50	0.10
Cortot 1951		37	0.66	63	0.00	36	0.05	36	0.18	19	0.41	26	0.27
Csalog 1996		78	0.51	27	0.00	54	0.04	64	0.04	28	0.28	46	0.11
Czerny 1949		64	0.55	53	0.00	69	0.04	71	0.04	53	0.05	81	0.04
Czerny 1990		22	0.70	57	0.00	17	0.10	17	0.40	28	0.24	20	0.31
Duchoud 2007		74	0.52	77	0.00	83	0.05	51	0.05	59	0.05	69	0.05
Ezaki 2006		14	0.73	8	0.03	15	0.10	15	0.42	17	0.39	11	0.40
Falvay 1989		49	0.61	49	0.00	80	0.03	86	0.03	31	0.41	43	0.11
Farrell 1958		7	0.75	5	0.06	3	0.15	5	0.57	4	0.58	3	0.57
Ferenczy 1958		66	0.55	75	0.00	57	0.04	72	0.04	49	0.06	68	0.05
Fliere 1977		39	0.65	33	0.00	34	0.05	32	0.19	64	0.04	53	0.09
Fou 1978		2	0.79	11	0.02	6	0.14	4	0.58	5	0.50	5	0.54
Francois 1956		35	0.66	71	0.00	27	0.07	25	0.25	16	0.45	18	0.34
Friedman 1923		56	0.58	72	0.00	79	0.03	84	0.03	67	0.04	89	0.03
Friedman 1923b		58	0.57	59	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	69	0.04	88	0.03
Friedman 1930		60	0.57	41	0.00	82	0.04	68	0.04	69	0.04	79	0.04
Garcia 2007		11	0.73	31	0.00	12	0.10	10	0.51	9	0.54	7	0.52
Garcia 2007b		16	0.71	18	0.01	13	0.12	13	0.45	21	0.40	10	0.42
Gierzod 1998		40	0.65	39	0.00	39	0.04	39	0.12	55	0.05	58	0.08
Gornostaeva 1994		53	0.60	83	0.00	62	0.05	57	0.05	44	0.09	61	0.07
Groot 1988		33	0.67	14	0.01	21	0.08	28	0.22	15	0.41	21	0.30
Harasiewicz 1955		42	0.64	23	0.00	35	0.05	34	0.18	56	0.05	54	0.09
Hatto 1993		54	0.59	66	0.00	64	0.05	52	0.05	56	0.06	72	0.05
Hatto 1997		51	0.61	84	0.00	65	0.09	41	0.09	51	0.06	60	0.07
Horowitz 1949		62	0.55	73	0.00	67	0.03	85	0.03	52	0.07	64	0.05
Indjic 1988		50	0.61	78	0.00	63	0.04	66	0.04	51	0.06	66	0.05
Kapell 1951		38	0.66	24	0.00	11	0.10	11	0.49	20	0.23	16	0.34
Kissin 1993		41	0.65	19	0.01	33	0.05	33	0.18	50	0.04	57	0.08
Kushner 1989		13	0.73	10	0.02	8	0.17	8	0.53	4	0.55	6	0.54
Luisada 1991		24	0.69	28	0.00	31	0.07	27	0.24	48	0.07	40	0.13
Lushtak 2004		25	0.69	17	0.01	19	0.08	16	0.40	15	0.31	15	0.35
Malcuzynski 1961		84	0.47	62	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	46	0.06	74	0.04
Magaloff 1978		27	0.69	34	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	25	0.28	42	0.12
Magin 1975		71	0.52	47	0.00	60	0.04	65	0.04	64	0.04	73	0.04
Michalowski 1933		75	0.51	32	0.00	77	0.03	87	0.03	67	0.04	85	0.03
Milkina 1970		3	0.78	3	0.07	4	0.18	2	0.69	5	0.62	1	0.65
Mohovich 1999		4	0.78	16	0.01	7	0.14	7	0.54	6	0.58	4	0.56
Moravec 1969		52	0.60	22	0.00	52	0.05	55	0.05	18	0.46	37	0.15
Morozova 2008		48	0.61	30	0.00	45	0.04	47	0.07	65	0.04	67	0.05
Neighaus 1950		43	0.64	50	0.00	53	0.04	67	0.04	69	0.04	83	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		68	0.54	48	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	44	0.10	56	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		47	0.62	40	0.00	56	0.04	69	0.04	70	0.04	77	0.04
Osinska 1989		5	0.77	2	0.20	2	0.29	3	0.63	7	0.57	2	0.60
Pachmann 1927		72	0.52	80	0.00	85	0.04	58	0.04	60	0.04	76	0.04
Paderewski 1930		23	0.70	60	0.00	37	0.07	31	0.19	12	0.43	22	0.29
Perlemuter 1992		6	0.77	4	0.06	5	0.13	6	0.55	9	0.47	8	0.51
Pierdomenico 2008		76	0.51	81	0.00	44	0.04	46	0.08	9	0.45	32	0.19
Poblocka 1999		83	0.48	36	0.00	59	0.05	54	0.05	50	0.06	63	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		9	0.75	12	0.01	16	0.11	14	0.42	11	0.39	12	0.40
Rachmaninoff 1923		21	0.70	55	0.00	29	0.06	38	0.14	76	0.03	62	0.06
Rangell 2001		70	0.53	29	0.00	38	0.04	43	0.09	9	0.43	31	0.20
Richter 1976		86	0.32	90	0.00	86	0.04	74	0.04	67	0.04	75	0.04
Rosen 1989		30	0.69	86	0.00	26	0.08	19	0.35	30	0.21	25	0.27
Rosenthal 1930		73	0.52	44	0.00	75	0.03	79	0.03	40	0.10	70	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		69	0.53	25	0.00	74	0.04	73	0.04	23	0.32	45	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		65	0.55	20	0.01	73	0.03	83	0.03	22	0.31	52	0.10
Rosenthal 1931c		81	0.49	69	0.00	81	0.04	70	0.04	31	0.22	55	0.09
Rosenthal 1931d		63	0.55	67	0.00	72	0.03	76	0.03	21	0.35	51	0.10
Rossi 2007		19	0.70	52	0.00	46	0.05	56	0.05	8	0.52	34	0.16
Rubinstein 1939		44	0.64	51	0.00	55	0.04	62	0.04	25	0.29	44	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		59	0.57	87	0.00	50	0.06	48	0.06	17	0.45	36	0.16
Rubinstein 1966		15	0.72	42	0.00	28	0.06	30	0.20	19	0.39	23	0.28
Schilhawsky 1960		80	0.49	21	0.01	70	0.03	82	0.03	59	0.05	78	0.04
Shebanova 2002		29	0.69	74	0.00	25	0.08	20	0.34	45	0.08	35	0.16
Smith 1975		46	0.62	68	0.00	41	0.04	40	0.10	34	0.17	41	0.13
Sokolov 2002		36	0.66	37	0.00	47	0.05	53	0.05	27	0.22	47	0.10
Sztompka 1959		12	0.73	15	0.01	9	0.12	12	0.47	38	0.16	24	0.27
Tomsic 1995		79	0.50	64	0.00	66	0.04	60	0.04	17	0.47	39	0.14
Uninsky 1932		57	0.57	70	0.00	61	0.04	59	0.04	59	0.05	80	0.04
Uninsky 1971		85	0.43	61	0.00	68	0.03	75	0.03	51	0.07	65	0.05
Wasowski 1980		28	0.69	46	0.00	30	0.06	29	0.21	23	0.22	30	0.21
Zak 1937		26	0.69	26	0.00	20	0.08	21	0.33	35	0.16	28	0.23
Zak 1951		34	0.67	54	0.00	22	0.08	22	0.32	40	0.16	29	0.23
Average		1	0.81	1	0.25	1	0.25	1	0.74	36	0.22	13	0.40
Random 1		91	-0.25	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	50	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		89	0.01	82	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	38	0.11	86	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.16	76	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	50	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).