Duchoud 2007

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		49	0.25	5	0.03	53	0.05	56	0.05	80	0.03	60	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		50	0.25	6	0.03	26	0.07	30	0.43	73	0.04	29	0.13
Ashkenazy 1981		7	0.39	12	0.01	9	0.08	19	0.50	33	0.24	9	0.35
Bacha 2000		9	0.38	19	0.01	21	0.09	20	0.48	29	0.30	6	0.38
Badura 1965		40	0.30	16	0.01	13	0.07	16	0.53	30	0.27	7	0.38
Barbosa 1983		64	0.21	85	0.00	73	0.04	67	0.04	88	0.02	73	0.03
Biret 1990		53	0.25	86	0.00	50	0.05	60	0.05	80	0.03	63	0.04
Blet 2003		60	0.22	58	0.00	58	0.05	64	0.05	82	0.03	57	0.04
Block 1995		77	0.15	59	0.00	59	0.06	50	0.06	85	0.03	61	0.04
Blumental 1952		85	0.10	51	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02
Boshniakovich 1969		24	0.34	8	0.02	40	0.08	41	0.23	72	0.03	43	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		88	0.06	74	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.01	91	0.01
Bunin 1987		55	0.24	38	0.00	27	0.07	35	0.37	55	0.05	26	0.14
Bunin 1987b		54	0.24	33	0.00	25	0.07	28	0.44	41	0.13	13	0.24
Chiu 1999		18	0.35	29	0.00	14	0.08	14	0.53	36	0.20	10	0.33
Cohen 1997		56	0.24	41	0.00	52	0.06	55	0.06	57	0.04	51	0.05
Cortot 1951		87	0.09	69	0.00	86	0.02	83	0.02	65	0.03	90	0.02
Csalog 1996		47	0.28	24	0.00	33	0.08	37	0.32	57	0.05	28	0.13
Czerny 1949		43	0.29	87	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	73	0.03	59	0.04
Czerny 1990		63	0.21	88	0.00	70	0.04	69	0.04	83	0.03	75	0.03
Duchoud 2007		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ezaki 2006		57	0.23	60	0.00	51	0.07	48	0.07	84	0.03	47	0.05
Falvay 1989		52	0.25	45	0.00	57	0.06	54	0.06	83	0.04	48	0.05
Farrell 1958		14	0.36	9	0.02	7	0.13	10	0.57	47	0.09	14	0.23
Ferenczy 1958		83	0.10	57	0.00	80	0.02	81	0.02	77	0.03	85	0.02
Fliere 1977		23	0.34	25	0.00	15	0.09	15	0.53	76	0.04	21	0.15
Fou 1978		42	0.29	79	0.00	56	0.07	47	0.07	75	0.04	49	0.05
Francois 1956		39	0.30	35	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	63	0.04	52	0.05
Friedman 1923		65	0.20	75	0.00	62	0.06	52	0.06	72	0.04	53	0.05
Friedman 1923b		68	0.20	61	0.00	61	0.05	61	0.05	66	0.04	62	0.04
Friedman 1930		48	0.27	30	0.00	45	0.08	45	0.15	62	0.05	41	0.09
Garcia 2007		35	0.31	32	0.00	34	0.07	32	0.40	56	0.05	25	0.14
Garcia 2007b		15	0.36	18	0.01	16	0.10	13	0.54	57	0.05	20	0.16
Gierzod 1998		10	0.38	80	0.00	39	0.10	39	0.27	72	0.04	39	0.10
Gornostaeva 1994		32	0.32	54	0.00	22	0.07	29	0.43	72	0.03	36	0.11
Groot 1988		46	0.28	39	0.00	38	0.12	36	0.33	80	0.03	40	0.10
Harasiewicz 1955		72	0.17	81	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.03	77	0.03
Hatto 1993		37	0.30	76	0.00	44	0.07	43	0.17	59	0.04	45	0.08
Hatto 1997		36	0.31	89	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.22	69	0.04	42	0.09
Horowitz 1949		84	0.10	70	0.00	85	0.02	82	0.02	83	0.03	83	0.02
Indjic 1988		34	0.31	82	0.00	41	0.08	40	0.25	60	0.04	38	0.10
Kapell 1951		20	0.35	77	0.00	30	0.07	25	0.44	54	0.06	18	0.16
Kissin 1993		38	0.30	62	0.00	54	0.05	57	0.05	64	0.05	50	0.05
Kushner 1989		6	0.40	28	0.00	10	0.08	9	0.57	73	0.04	22	0.15
Luisada 1991		75	0.16	50	0.00	77	0.02	85	0.02	86	0.03	79	0.02
Lushtak 2004		28	0.33	14	0.01	6	0.13	5	0.59	61	0.05	16	0.17
Malcuzynski 1961		26	0.34	4	0.04	12	0.08	11	0.55	47	0.08	15	0.21
Magaloff 1978		29	0.33	37	0.00	42	0.07	44	0.17	70	0.03	46	0.07
Magin 1975		31	0.32	43	0.00	36	0.09	34	0.39	80	0.03	35	0.11
Michalowski 1933		86	0.10	48	0.00	65	0.05	62	0.05	61	0.03	56	0.04
Milkina 1970		17	0.35	42	0.00	23	0.06	17	0.52	65	0.05	19	0.16
Mohovich 1999		45	0.28	40	0.00	24	0.06	31	0.41	75	0.04	31	0.13
Moravec 1969		69	0.19	63	0.00	84	0.02	79	0.02	87	0.02	78	0.02
Morozova 2008		12	0.37	13	0.01	5	0.13	7	0.58	40	0.14	12	0.28
Neighaus 1950		67	0.20	17	0.01	63	0.05	58	0.05	72	0.03	64	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		78	0.15	71	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	84	0.02	82	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		1	0.49	1	0.36	1	0.35	2	0.77	16	0.48	1	0.61
Osinska 1989		21	0.35	46	0.00	28	0.11	18	0.51	71	0.04	23	0.14
Pachmann 1927		13	0.36	27	0.00	18	0.07	26	0.44	21	0.44	5	0.44
Paderewski 1930		79	0.14	78	0.00	83	0.03	77	0.03	76	0.03	70	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		58	0.22	55	0.00	64	0.05	63	0.05	78	0.03	54	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		5	0.41	15	0.01	11	0.09	8	0.57	16	0.52	3	0.54
Poblocka 1999		76	0.16	83	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	86	0.02	80	0.02
Rabcewiczowa 1932		27	0.33	65	0.00	29	0.07	22	0.45	77	0.03	33	0.12
Rachmaninoff 1923		82	0.12	66	0.00	75	0.04	66	0.04	85	0.02	69	0.03
Rangell 2001		16	0.36	10	0.01	31	0.09	21	0.47	55	0.06	17	0.17
Richter 1976		44	0.29	23	0.00	48	0.06	53	0.06	85	0.03	55	0.04
Rosen 1989		2	0.48	3	0.16	2	0.34	1	0.78	22	0.40	2	0.56
Rosenthal 1930		73	0.17	56	0.00	81	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.13	90	0.00	78	0.02	80	0.02	85	0.02	84	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		70	0.19	91	0.00	67	0.03	73	0.03	55	0.05	65	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		59	0.22	21	0.00	60	0.05	65	0.05	82	0.03	66	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		74	0.17	64	0.00	74	0.03	71	0.03	84	0.03	76	0.03
Rossi 2007		22	0.34	22	0.00	19	0.08	27	0.44	36	0.19	11	0.29
Rubinstein 1939		25	0.34	44	0.00	20	0.09	23	0.45	70	0.04	27	0.13
Rubinstein 1952		11	0.38	34	0.00	17	0.10	12	0.54	76	0.03	32	0.13
Rubinstein 1966		19	0.35	72	0.00	37	0.14	33	0.40	74	0.04	30	0.13
Schilhawsky 1960		51	0.25	67	0.00	47	0.05	59	0.05	75	0.03	58	0.04
Shebanova 2002		4	0.43	2	0.16	3	0.30	4	0.66	26	0.33	4	0.47
Smith 1975		66	0.20	31	0.00	66	0.03	75	0.03	87	0.02	81	0.02
Sokolov 2002		41	0.29	52	0.00	55	0.06	51	0.06	79	0.02	68	0.03
Sztompka 1959		62	0.21	53	0.00	71	0.03	72	0.03	86	0.03	71	0.03
Tomsic 1995		8	0.39	7	0.02	8	0.14	6	0.58	37	0.21	8	0.35
Uninsky 1932		80	0.13	36	0.00	69	0.04	70	0.04	88	0.02	74	0.03
Uninsky 1971		61	0.22	47	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	85	0.03	72	0.03
Wasowski 1980		71	0.18	20	0.01	72	0.03	74	0.03	85	0.03	67	0.03
Zak 1937		33	0.31	73	0.00	35	0.08	38	0.32	84	0.03	37	0.10
Zak 1951		30	0.32	68	0.00	32	0.10	24	0.45	81	0.03	34	0.12
Average		3	0.44	11	0.01	4	0.26	3	0.66	82	0.03	24	0.14
Random 1		91	-0.09	26	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	64	0.03	89	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.06	84	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	62	0.03	86	0.02
Random 3		89	0.01	49	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	19	0.31	44	0.08

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).