Luisada 1991

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		4	0.82	16	0.01	6	0.14	4	0.55	10	0.46	5	0.50
Anderszewski 2003		17	0.76	12	0.01	16	0.05	20	0.31	16	0.31	29	0.31
Ashkenazy 1981		23	0.75	10	0.02	18	0.07	19	0.32	19	0.33	26	0.32
Bacha 2000		54	0.65	21	0.01	27	0.05	37	0.16	10	0.41	36	0.26
Badura 1965		45	0.68	45	0.00	62	0.06	51	0.06	32	0.35	43	0.14
Barbosa 1983		41	0.69	27	0.00	43	0.06	38	0.15	4	0.52	33	0.28
Biret 1990		40	0.69	14	0.01	53	0.07	48	0.07	27	0.24	48	0.13
Blet 2003		32	0.74	51	0.00	38	0.07	36	0.17	7	0.46	34	0.28
Block 1995		59	0.62	77	0.00	39	0.05	43	0.12	13	0.32	41	0.20
Blumental 1952		42	0.69	13	0.01	44	0.05	44	0.10	34	0.13	56	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		48	0.67	15	0.01	49	0.05	61	0.05	43	0.17	61	0.09
Brailowsky 1960		43	0.69	11	0.02	31	0.06	34	0.20	1	0.65	19	0.36
Bunin 1987		83	0.41	54	0.00	88	0.04	75	0.04	61	0.05	82	0.04
Bunin 1987b		85	0.40	67	0.00	87	0.04	69	0.04	60	0.05	77	0.04
Chiu 1999		20	0.76	23	0.01	22	0.08	23	0.30	4	0.45	17	0.37
Cohen 1997		73	0.51	78	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	36	0.21	65	0.08
Cortot 1951		66	0.59	57	0.00	70	0.04	67	0.04	60	0.04	83	0.04
Csalog 1996		87	0.39	55	0.00	69	0.04	68	0.04	40	0.12	70	0.07
Czerny 1949		53	0.65	89	0.00	56	0.05	63	0.05	48	0.07	72	0.06
Czerny 1990		21	0.75	79	0.00	26	0.05	29	0.24	18	0.35	32	0.29
Duchoud 2007		76	0.50	34	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	56	0.05	81	0.04
Ezaki 2006		2	0.84	4	0.06	5	0.17	8	0.42	11	0.51	7	0.46
Falvay 1989		71	0.53	37	0.00	80	0.04	74	0.04	43	0.21	60	0.09
Farrell 1958		38	0.71	75	0.00	55	0.05	60	0.05	38	0.19	57	0.10
Ferenczy 1958		50	0.66	19	0.01	51	0.05	59	0.05	17	0.36	46	0.13
Fliere 1977		5	0.82	6	0.04	3	0.19	3	0.65	11	0.46	2	0.55
Fou 1978		19	0.76	44	0.00	36	0.05	31	0.21	19	0.34	35	0.27
Francois 1956		64	0.59	80	0.00	65	0.06	49	0.06	30	0.24	51	0.12
Friedman 1923		6	0.80	5	0.05	14	0.08	15	0.35	18	0.48	13	0.41
Friedman 1923b		7	0.80	40	0.00	15	0.09	14	0.35	19	0.47	12	0.41
Friedman 1930		16	0.76	52	0.00	23	0.09	21	0.30	21	0.45	18	0.37
Garcia 2007		44	0.69	90	0.00	60	0.05	62	0.05	51	0.06	75	0.05
Garcia 2007b		47	0.68	74	0.00	54	0.06	50	0.06	34	0.24	52	0.12
Gierzod 1998		26	0.74	3	0.06	9	0.12	7	0.46	20	0.40	9	0.43
Gornostaeva 1994		57	0.63	31	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.13	10	0.40	39	0.23
Groot 1988		58	0.62	58	0.00	64	0.07	47	0.07	37	0.24	49	0.13
Harasiewicz 1955		22	0.75	62	0.00	37	0.05	41	0.13	62	0.05	66	0.08
Hatto 1993		12	0.79	76	0.00	19	0.07	16	0.34	22	0.31	27	0.32
Hatto 1997		11	0.79	68	0.00	21	0.08	18	0.33	23	0.31	25	0.32
Horowitz 1949		60	0.62	41	0.00	66	0.05	58	0.05	46	0.09	68	0.07
Indjic 1988		10	0.80	81	0.00	20	0.08	17	0.34	22	0.32	22	0.33
Kapell 1951		61	0.62	42	0.00	41	0.05	39	0.15	59	0.04	63	0.08
Kissin 1993		14	0.78	8	0.04	7	0.11	6	0.47	15	0.47	6	0.47
Kushner 1989		31	0.74	47	0.00	28	0.04	24	0.26	20	0.40	23	0.32
Luisada 1991		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Lushtak 2004		15	0.77	18	0.01	35	0.06	33	0.21	20	0.28	37	0.24
Malcuzynski 1961		84	0.41	82	0.00	76	0.03	84	0.03	64	0.04	86	0.03
Magaloff 1978		56	0.63	30	0.00	57	0.05	64	0.05	15	0.37	42	0.14
Magin 1975		28	0.74	20	0.01	17	0.08	13	0.35	14	0.46	14	0.40
Michalowski 1933		74	0.51	71	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	59	0.05	80	0.04
Milkina 1970		34	0.72	28	0.00	10	0.09	22	0.30	12	0.49	16	0.38
Mohovich 1999		36	0.71	35	0.00	40	0.05	35	0.18	18	0.46	31	0.29
Moravec 1969		78	0.44	72	0.00	86	0.03	79	0.03	70	0.04	85	0.03
Morozova 2008		3	0.84	7	0.04	4	0.13	5	0.48	4	0.55	4	0.51
Neighaus 1950		46	0.68	91	0.00	48	0.05	55	0.05	35	0.16	62	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		49	0.67	56	0.00	47	0.04	66	0.04	24	0.41	45	0.13
Ohlsson 1999		52	0.66	26	0.00	46	0.04	65	0.04	40	0.15	64	0.08
Osinska 1989		25	0.75	60	0.00	24	0.07	9	0.42	18	0.44	8	0.43
Pachmann 1927		69	0.57	73	0.00	79	0.04	70	0.04	24	0.28	54	0.11
Paderewski 1930		68	0.57	85	0.00	68	0.04	73	0.04	50	0.04	79	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		29	0.74	59	0.00	25	0.06	25	0.25	16	0.34	30	0.29
Pierdomenico 2008		77	0.49	32	0.00	74	0.03	85	0.03	49	0.06	76	0.04
Poblocka 1999		62	0.62	29	0.00	59	0.06	54	0.06	52	0.05	74	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		55	0.64	46	0.00	52	0.06	52	0.06	24	0.26	50	0.12
Rachmaninoff 1923		37	0.71	69	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.09	31	0.20	44	0.13
Rangell 2001		88	0.32	86	0.00	75	0.03	87	0.03	61	0.04	89	0.03
Richter 1976		72	0.53	66	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	61	0.05	78	0.04
Rosen 1989		8	0.80	2	0.16	2	0.25	2	0.67	2	0.66	1	0.66
Rosenthal 1930		79	0.42	83	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	49	0.05	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.42	70	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	38	0.16	69	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.41	48	0.00	85	0.04	71	0.04	62	0.05	84	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		86	0.39	63	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	36	0.19	67	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.42	84	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	42	0.12	73	0.06
Rossi 2007		63	0.61	53	0.00	67	0.04	72	0.04	25	0.30	53	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		24	0.75	17	0.01	32	0.06	30	0.22	4	0.54	20	0.34
Rubinstein 1952		70	0.57	9	0.04	11	0.09	42	0.13	18	0.45	38	0.24
Rubinstein 1966		27	0.74	39	0.00	29	0.05	32	0.21	9	0.49	24	0.32
Schilhawsky 1960		51	0.66	49	0.00	58	0.05	57	0.05	46	0.09	71	0.07
Shebanova 2002		33	0.73	25	0.00	8	0.12	11	0.41	20	0.37	15	0.39
Smith 1975		35	0.71	22	0.01	30	0.05	28	0.24	7	0.45	21	0.33
Sokolov 2002		67	0.58	36	0.00	63	0.05	56	0.05	39	0.15	59	0.09
Sztompka 1959		30	0.74	64	0.00	34	0.07	26	0.25	40	0.16	40	0.20
Tomsic 1995		75	0.50	87	0.00	72	0.03	76	0.03	29	0.35	58	0.10
Uninsky 1932		39	0.70	38	0.00	50	0.07	46	0.07	36	0.25	47	0.13
Uninsky 1971		65	0.59	24	0.01	61	0.06	53	0.06	41	0.22	55	0.11
Wasowski 1980		18	0.76	88	0.00	33	0.07	27	0.25	10	0.38	28	0.31
Zak 1937		9	0.80	33	0.00	13	0.13	10	0.41	10	0.43	10	0.42
Zak 1951		13	0.79	43	0.00	12	0.11	12	0.40	10	0.43	11	0.41
Average		1	0.86	1	0.31	1	0.30	1	0.72	13	0.42	3	0.55
Random 1		91	-0.34	61	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.01	90	0.01
Random 2		89	-0.05	50	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	50	0.04	87	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.23	65	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	75	0.02	91	0.01

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).