Poblocka 1999

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		5	0.81	2	0.12	2	0.15	3	0.60	7	0.52	3	0.56
Anderszewski 2003		43	0.61	50	0.00	39	0.06	43	0.13	37	0.21	41	0.17
Ashkenazy 1981		64	0.52	43	0.00	33	0.05	31	0.27	25	0.28	34	0.27
Bacha 2000		84	0.35	60	0.00	66	0.05	53	0.05	47	0.06	63	0.05
Badura 1965		29	0.67	44	0.00	23	0.05	23	0.36	12	0.53	19	0.44
Barbosa 1983		86	0.28	65	0.00	76	0.03	85	0.03	73	0.03	85	0.03
Biret 1990		68	0.48	61	0.00	65	0.06	50	0.06	54	0.05	68	0.05
Blet 2003		24	0.69	68	0.00	47	0.07	47	0.07	14	0.38	45	0.16
Block 1995		41	0.62	38	0.00	50	0.05	60	0.05	27	0.19	54	0.10
Blumental 1952		72	0.44	28	0.01	30	0.05	33	0.23	21	0.21	38	0.22
Boshniakovich 1969		10	0.78	25	0.01	16	0.15	15	0.47	9	0.55	11	0.51
Brailowsky 1960		80	0.42	32	0.00	74	0.04	76	0.04	55	0.04	70	0.04
Bunin 1987		44	0.59	86	0.00	38	0.06	40	0.16	13	0.47	35	0.27
Bunin 1987b		48	0.59	71	0.00	37	0.06	39	0.16	13	0.47	33	0.27
Chiu 1999		81	0.38	69	0.00	62	0.05	62	0.05	63	0.03	71	0.04
Cohen 1997		88	0.15	81	0.00	77	0.03	82	0.03	57	0.04	88	0.03
Cortot 1951		30	0.66	51	0.00	31	0.05	34	0.23	20	0.41	31	0.31
Csalog 1996		49	0.59	26	0.01	44	0.05	45	0.11	8	0.43	37	0.22
Czerny 1949		12	0.76	82	0.00	14	0.14	12	0.49	20	0.47	13	0.48
Czerny 1990		36	0.64	74	0.00	53	0.04	67	0.04	79	0.03	89	0.03
Duchoud 2007		65	0.50	77	0.00	55	0.04	69	0.04	24	0.26	53	0.10
Ezaki 2006		42	0.61	24	0.01	57	0.05	54	0.05	43	0.08	58	0.06
Falvay 1989		85	0.35	29	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	55	0.06	73	0.04
Farrell 1958		79	0.42	31	0.00	72	0.03	78	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		21	0.70	18	0.01	27	0.06	22	0.37	2	0.55	17	0.45
Fliere 1977		4	0.81	4	0.07	4	0.17	1	0.61	6	0.48	4	0.54
Fou 1978		45	0.59	48	0.00	41	0.07	38	0.17	29	0.21	39	0.19
Francois 1956		63	0.55	66	0.00	67	0.07	48	0.07	50	0.05	62	0.06
Friedman 1923		50	0.58	78	0.00	56	0.05	64	0.05	37	0.33	48	0.13
Friedman 1923b		51	0.58	88	0.00	54	0.04	66	0.04	37	0.33	51	0.11
Friedman 1930		56	0.58	80	0.00	64	0.05	61	0.05	44	0.15	55	0.09
Garcia 2007		26	0.68	56	0.00	32	0.05	30	0.29	22	0.36	29	0.32
Garcia 2007b		32	0.66	72	0.00	24	0.05	28	0.34	25	0.35	25	0.34
Gierzod 1998		6	0.80	7	0.05	9	0.21	4	0.56	11	0.51	7	0.53
Gornostaeva 1994		52	0.58	75	0.00	68	0.06	49	0.06	50	0.06	61	0.06
Groot 1988		73	0.44	53	0.00	70	0.05	55	0.05	61	0.05	69	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		17	0.73	22	0.01	10	0.11	8	0.54	8	0.50	8	0.52
Hatto 1993		55	0.58	16	0.01	36	0.12	27	0.34	23	0.30	30	0.32
Hatto 1997		47	0.59	55	0.00	34	0.06	25	0.34	21	0.33	28	0.33
Horowitz 1949		20	0.70	76	0.00	25	0.06	29	0.32	9	0.52	21	0.41
Indjic 1988		46	0.59	73	0.00	35	0.09	24	0.34	21	0.33	27	0.33
Kapell 1951		13	0.76	3	0.10	5	0.15	10	0.52	4	0.45	12	0.48
Kissin 1993		3	0.81	5	0.06	8	0.15	5	0.55	6	0.54	5	0.54
Kushner 1989		18	0.71	10	0.02	26	0.06	32	0.25	28	0.30	32	0.27
Luisada 1991		40	0.62	35	0.00	49	0.05	52	0.05	54	0.06	64	0.05
Lushtak 2004		61	0.56	54	0.00	40	0.06	37	0.17	33	0.17	42	0.17
Malcuzynski 1961		53	0.58	12	0.02	63	0.05	65	0.05	44	0.13	56	0.08
Magaloff 1978		77	0.43	57	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	69	0.04	83	0.03
Magin 1975		16	0.74	13	0.02	19	0.08	19	0.42	19	0.40	20	0.41
Michalowski 1933		15	0.74	21	0.01	18	0.19	16	0.46	5	0.57	9	0.51
Milkina 1970		34	0.64	14	0.02	51	0.06	51	0.06	59	0.04	67	0.05
Mohovich 1999		54	0.58	33	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.14	40	0.21	43	0.17
Moravec 1969		78	0.43	67	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	68	0.04	81	0.03
Morozova 2008		28	0.67	45	0.00	28	0.06	35	0.23	28	0.27	36	0.25
Neighaus 1950		23	0.70	17	0.01	12	0.10	11	0.49	14	0.46	15	0.47
Niedzielski 1931		25	0.68	83	0.00	46	0.05	63	0.05	35	0.25	49	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		39	0.62	8	0.04	13	0.11	17	0.45	12	0.46	16	0.45
Osinska 1989		27	0.67	46	0.00	29	0.05	36	0.19	44	0.13	44	0.16
Pachmann 1927		38	0.63	41	0.00	60	0.05	56	0.05	7	0.46	46	0.15
Paderewski 1930		60	0.57	49	0.00	52	0.04	72	0.04	30	0.24	52	0.10
Perlemuter 1992		35	0.64	70	0.00	22	0.05	26	0.34	18	0.33	26	0.33
Pierdomenico 2008		76	0.43	59	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	48	0.06	74	0.04
Poblocka 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rabcewiczowa 1932		58	0.57	37	0.00	61	0.05	57	0.05	51	0.05	66	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		57	0.57	79	0.00	58	0.04	73	0.04	57	0.04	72	0.04
Rangell 2001		74	0.44	27	0.01	71	0.05	59	0.05	43	0.13	57	0.08
Richter 1976		8	0.79	11	0.02	11	0.10	14	0.47	1	0.67	2	0.56
Rosen 1989		31	0.66	40	0.00	48	0.05	58	0.05	45	0.07	60	0.06
Rosenthal 1930		33	0.65	62	0.00	59	0.04	68	0.04	13	0.33	50	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		67	0.48	87	0.00	84	0.03	86	0.03	76	0.04	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		69	0.47	89	0.00	85	0.03	77	0.03	58	0.05	79	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		66	0.50	42	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.04	90	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		70	0.47	84	0.00	86	0.04	75	0.04	58	0.05	78	0.04
Rossi 2007		87	0.27	52	0.00	88	0.04	74	0.04	79	0.03	82	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		75	0.43	34	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	51	0.06	75	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		83	0.36	23	0.01	80	0.04	71	0.04	65	0.05	80	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		82	0.37	36	0.00	79	0.04	70	0.04	67	0.04	77	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		2	0.84	1	0.14	1	0.14	6	0.55	4	0.60	1	0.57
Shebanova 2002		9	0.79	9	0.03	6	0.17	2	0.60	8	0.48	6	0.54
Smith 1975		59	0.57	39	0.00	69	0.07	46	0.07	73	0.04	65	0.05
Sokolov 2002		62	0.55	30	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	23	0.28	40	0.18
Sztompka 1959		14	0.74	20	0.01	15	0.13	13	0.48	14	0.41	18	0.44
Tomsic 1995		71	0.45	58	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	57	0.06	76	0.04
Uninsky 1932		7	0.80	63	0.00	17	0.20	18	0.44	10	0.50	14	0.47
Uninsky 1971		1	0.85	6	0.05	3	0.18	9	0.54	4	0.49	10	0.51
Wasowski 1980		37	0.64	19	0.01	42	0.06	42	0.14	38	0.13	47	0.13
Zak 1937		19	0.71	47	0.00	20	0.07	20	0.42	19	0.31	23	0.36
Zak 1951		22	0.70	64	0.00	21	0.05	21	0.41	20	0.30	24	0.35
Average		11	0.77	15	0.02	7	0.17	7	0.55	33	0.25	22	0.37
Random 1		89	-0.14	85	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	44	0.09	87	0.03
Random 2		90	-0.15	90	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	28	0.18	59	0.06
Random 3		91	-0.23	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	58	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).