Perlemuter 1992

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		3	0.80	26	0.00	12	0.10	5	0.50	28	0.30	12	0.39
Anderszewski 2003		34	0.69	28	0.00	53	0.04	70	0.04	46	0.08	68	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		51	0.64	88	0.00	55	0.03	80	0.03	47	0.06	85	0.04
Bacha 2000		57	0.62	61	0.00	65	0.03	79	0.03	52	0.05	80	0.04
Badura 1965		43	0.67	18	0.01	46	0.04	57	0.04	46	0.07	76	0.05
Barbosa 1983		69	0.58	75	0.00	64	0.03	76	0.03	30	0.17	60	0.07
Biret 1990		5	0.77	31	0.00	11	0.09	9	0.47	6	0.55	3	0.51
Blet 2003		18	0.73	58	0.00	22	0.06	22	0.29	5	0.46	14	0.37
Block 1995		61	0.60	25	0.01	62	0.04	66	0.04	42	0.10	70	0.06
Blumental 1952		26	0.70	24	0.01	34	0.07	33	0.21	25	0.19	36	0.20
Boshniakovich 1969		44	0.66	36	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	45	0.13	46	0.11
Brailowsky 1960		45	0.66	34	0.00	68	0.04	54	0.04	37	0.18	54	0.08
Bunin 1987		79	0.51	78	0.00	77	0.04	72	0.04	38	0.22	52	0.09
Bunin 1987b		80	0.48	59	0.00	76	0.03	75	0.03	38	0.23	56	0.08
Chiu 1999		29	0.70	74	0.00	48	0.04	67	0.04	41	0.14	58	0.07
Cohen 1997		73	0.55	70	0.00	74	0.03	83	0.03	12	0.38	47	0.11
Cortot 1951		35	0.69	55	0.00	44	0.06	39	0.14	24	0.39	32	0.23
Csalog 1996		78	0.52	40	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.13	15	0.38	33	0.22
Czerny 1949		47	0.65	16	0.01	29	0.06	44	0.12	73	0.04	62	0.07
Czerny 1990		20	0.72	56	0.00	37	0.06	32	0.21	32	0.16	40	0.18
Duchoud 2007		76	0.54	79	0.00	69	0.04	62	0.04	52	0.05	84	0.04
Ezaki 2006		24	0.70	91	0.00	60	0.04	63	0.04	54	0.04	79	0.04
Falvay 1989		56	0.62	3	0.05	47	0.04	58	0.04	35	0.36	44	0.12
Farrell 1958		39	0.69	8	0.03	20	0.09	20	0.32	25	0.35	20	0.33
Ferenczy 1958		21	0.70	11	0.03	17	0.08	30	0.23	11	0.43	22	0.31
Fliere 1977		15	0.74	35	0.00	10	0.08	6	0.48	31	0.21	21	0.32
Fou 1978		2	0.81	41	0.00	6	0.08	7	0.48	8	0.47	6	0.47
Francois 1956		22	0.70	29	0.00	41	0.06	38	0.14	15	0.45	29	0.25
Friedman 1923		58	0.61	67	0.00	79	0.04	55	0.04	53	0.06	78	0.05
Friedman 1923b		62	0.60	69	0.00	80	0.04	53	0.04	55	0.05	86	0.04
Friedman 1930		59	0.60	65	0.00	82	0.04	71	0.04	54	0.06	74	0.05
Garcia 2007		6	0.77	5	0.04	4	0.14	3	0.58	4	0.62	1	0.60
Garcia 2007b		19	0.73	13	0.02	9	0.08	4	0.51	5	0.60	2	0.55
Gierzod 1998		30	0.70	84	0.00	30	0.08	19	0.32	41	0.15	35	0.22
Gornostaeva 1994		63	0.60	19	0.01	54	0.05	49	0.05	37	0.11	63	0.07
Groot 1988		37	0.69	15	0.02	21	0.09	26	0.26	10	0.48	17	0.35
Harasiewicz 1955		13	0.74	85	0.00	36	0.06	35	0.19	48	0.06	48	0.11
Hatto 1993		49	0.65	81	0.00	58	0.06	46	0.06	62	0.05	77	0.05
Hatto 1997		42	0.67	76	0.00	57	0.06	47	0.06	67	0.04	75	0.05
Horowitz 1949		52	0.64	82	0.00	61	0.04	51	0.04	47	0.09	66	0.06
Indjic 1988		41	0.67	77	0.00	56	0.03	73	0.03	65	0.05	83	0.04
Kapell 1951		48	0.65	12	0.02	3	0.15	13	0.46	15	0.30	13	0.37
Kissin 1993		9	0.76	60	0.00	15	0.09	14	0.46	22	0.39	10	0.42
Kushner 1989		11	0.75	17	0.01	7	0.08	8	0.47	11	0.50	5	0.48
Luisada 1991		12	0.74	57	0.00	18	0.07	16	0.34	25	0.25	23	0.29
Lushtak 2004		4	0.78	10	0.03	13	0.11	11	0.46	5	0.45	9	0.45
Malcuzynski 1961		83	0.45	44	0.00	72	0.03	84	0.03	62	0.04	87	0.03
Magaloff 1978		66	0.58	62	0.00	52	0.04	69	0.04	39	0.17	55	0.08
Magin 1975		71	0.55	38	0.00	59	0.04	56	0.04	53	0.05	82	0.04
Michalowski 1933		70	0.57	71	0.00	51	0.04	52	0.04	45	0.10	67	0.06
Milkina 1970		32	0.69	72	0.00	39	0.05	41	0.14	32	0.21	41	0.17
Mohovich 1999		38	0.69	30	0.00	38	0.05	36	0.17	41	0.19	39	0.18
Moravec 1969		77	0.52	66	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	37	0.19	53	0.08
Morozova 2008		25	0.70	52	0.00	31	0.05	28	0.24	25	0.29	25	0.26
Neighaus 1950		28	0.70	39	0.00	43	0.06	37	0.16	41	0.11	43	0.13
Niedzielski 1931		65	0.59	54	0.00	63	0.04	61	0.04	42	0.13	59	0.07
Ohlsson 1999		54	0.63	37	0.00	35	0.06	34	0.20	34	0.19	38	0.19
Osinska 1989		8	0.76	9	0.03	5	0.08	12	0.46	17	0.44	8	0.45
Pachmann 1927		50	0.64	43	0.00	78	0.04	64	0.04	34	0.16	57	0.08
Paderewski 1930		23	0.70	21	0.01	40	0.05	42	0.13	9	0.44	30	0.24
Perlemuter 1992		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Pierdomenico 2008		81	0.46	42	0.00	70	0.03	74	0.03	34	0.25	51	0.09
Poblocka 1999		53	0.64	6	0.03	8	0.07	18	0.33	26	0.34	19	0.33
Rabcewiczowa 1932		16	0.73	14	0.02	16	0.08	15	0.38	7	0.43	11	0.40
Rachmaninoff 1923		33	0.69	4	0.05	19	0.08	31	0.23	33	0.15	37	0.19
Rangell 2001		88	0.34	53	0.00	75	0.03	86	0.03	53	0.04	89	0.03
Richter 1976		75	0.54	50	0.00	71	0.03	81	0.03	47	0.09	73	0.05
Rosen 1989		46	0.66	48	0.00	32	0.06	25	0.27	28	0.26	26	0.26
Rosenthal 1930		82	0.46	68	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	63	0.04	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.41	51	0.00	87	0.03	78	0.03	37	0.16	61	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.42	80	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	37	0.15	64	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		87	0.38	86	0.00	88	0.04	59	0.04	42	0.14	65	0.07
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.42	73	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	38	0.16	71	0.06
Rossi 2007		68	0.58	64	0.00	84	0.04	68	0.04	55	0.06	72	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		55	0.62	23	0.01	67	0.05	50	0.05	32	0.19	49	0.10
Rubinstein 1952		72	0.55	87	0.00	50	0.06	48	0.06	19	0.44	42	0.16
Rubinstein 1966		40	0.68	7	0.03	25	0.06	40	0.14	23	0.36	34	0.22
Schilhawsky 1960		31	0.70	22	0.01	26	0.05	17	0.34	31	0.38	16	0.36
Shebanova 2002		7	0.76	2	0.15	2	0.22	2	0.64	15	0.39	4	0.50
Smith 1975		64	0.59	90	0.00	66	0.04	60	0.04	56	0.04	81	0.04
Sokolov 2002		67	0.58	46	0.00	49	0.04	65	0.04	29	0.21	50	0.09
Sztompka 1959		14	0.74	20	0.01	14	0.09	10	0.46	29	0.28	15	0.36
Tomsic 1995		74	0.55	33	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	24	0.41	45	0.11
Uninsky 1932		36	0.69	63	0.00	33	0.06	27	0.25	35	0.26	28	0.25
Uninsky 1971		60	0.60	27	0.00	23	0.06	29	0.24	34	0.33	24	0.28
Wasowski 1980		10	0.75	32	0.00	28	0.06	21	0.31	12	0.36	18	0.33
Zak 1937		17	0.73	49	0.00	24	0.06	23	0.29	29	0.22	27	0.25
Zak 1951		27	0.70	45	0.00	27	0.06	24	0.28	31	0.19	31	0.23
Average		1	0.84	1	0.29	1	0.29	1	0.68	22	0.32	7	0.47
Random 1		90	-0.18	89	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	54	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.04	47	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	27	0.19	69	0.06
Random 3		91	-0.19	83	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	55	0.04	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).