Farrell 1958

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		76	0.26	45	0.00	57	0.04	66	0.04	83	0.03	83	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		24	0.45	48	0.00	20	0.10	20	0.49	39	0.26	26	0.36
Ashkenazy 1981		70	0.31	52	0.00	74	0.04	77	0.04	80	0.03	85	0.03
Bacha 2000		25	0.45	51	0.00	22	0.07	22	0.45	4	0.59	13	0.52
Badura 1965		72	0.30	84	0.00	67	0.05	60	0.05	71	0.03	71	0.04
Barbosa 1983		8	0.53	17	0.00	14	0.16	8	0.67	27	0.38	14	0.50
Biret 1990		35	0.43	57	0.00	42	0.07	42	0.20	60	0.05	45	0.10
Blet 2003		87	0.18	73	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	79	0.03	90	0.02
Block 1995		57	0.35	82	0.00	66	0.06	51	0.06	58	0.05	62	0.05
Blumental 1952		52	0.37	74	0.00	59	0.04	70	0.04	66	0.05	72	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		49	0.39	66	0.00	50	0.08	49	0.08	69	0.04	57	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		71	0.31	69	0.00	76	0.04	74	0.04	80	0.03	81	0.03
Bunin 1987		68	0.32	68	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	67	0.04	75	0.04
Bunin 1987b		61	0.33	81	0.00	64	0.05	61	0.05	71	0.04	65	0.04
Chiu 1999		64	0.32	75	0.00	63	0.04	76	0.04	60	0.05	63	0.04
Cohen 1997		63	0.32	53	0.00	68	0.04	73	0.04	60	0.04	74	0.04
Cortot 1951		31	0.44	32	0.00	37	0.08	38	0.25	4	0.69	22	0.42
Csalog 1996		69	0.31	87	0.00	65	0.05	55	0.05	76	0.04	67	0.04
Czerny 1949		1	0.61	1	0.43	1	0.42	2	0.79	4	0.77	1	0.78
Czerny 1990		5	0.55	24	0.00	8	0.17	9	0.66	25	0.60	5	0.63
Duchoud 2007		55	0.36	43	0.00	49	0.09	47	0.09	10	0.57	36	0.23
Ezaki 2006		12	0.50	15	0.01	17	0.13	18	0.54	30	0.29	24	0.40
Falvay 1989		33	0.43	10	0.01	44	0.08	43	0.17	59	0.05	46	0.09
Farrell 1958		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ferenczy 1958		84	0.22	47	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	87	0.03	82	0.03
Fliere 1977		41	0.41	39	0.00	21	0.08	24	0.41	56	0.05	43	0.14
Fou 1978		44	0.40	76	0.00	48	0.13	45	0.13	51	0.06	47	0.09
Francois 1956		46	0.39	37	0.00	28	0.06	34	0.32	6	0.55	23	0.42
Friedman 1923		82	0.23	44	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	55	0.05	79	0.04
Friedman 1923b		81	0.23	77	0.00	81	0.04	72	0.04	74	0.04	76	0.04
Friedman 1930		77	0.26	58	0.00	82	0.05	59	0.05	73	0.04	68	0.04
Garcia 2007		47	0.39	6	0.01	35	0.07	41	0.22	14	0.51	30	0.33
Garcia 2007b		19	0.47	5	0.03	11	0.17	16	0.56	13	0.58	11	0.57
Gierzod 1998		40	0.42	14	0.01	45	0.08	44	0.16	75	0.04	52	0.08
Gornostaeva 1994		51	0.38	70	0.00	61	0.05	63	0.05	84	0.02	86	0.03
Groot 1988		45	0.40	35	0.00	31	0.06	35	0.29	70	0.04	44	0.11
Harasiewicz 1955		14	0.50	26	0.00	18	0.12	19	0.53	37	0.36	21	0.44
Hatto 1993		21	0.46	31	0.00	27	0.05	25	0.41	44	0.16	33	0.26
Hatto 1997		38	0.42	83	0.00	38	0.07	31	0.34	44	0.09	39	0.17
Horowitz 1949		89	0.06	88	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.02	91	0.01
Indjic 1988		34	0.43	71	0.00	32	0.08	28	0.39	43	0.16	34	0.25
Kapell 1951		9	0.51	29	0.00	10	0.14	7	0.67	19	0.55	8	0.61
Kissin 1993		23	0.46	18	0.00	24	0.06	30	0.36	38	0.34	27	0.35
Kushner 1989		6	0.55	3	0.10	5	0.36	5	0.72	13	0.57	4	0.64
Luisada 1991		85	0.21	54	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02
Lushtak 2004		10	0.51	22	0.00	12	0.17	14	0.58	22	0.48	12	0.53
Malcuzynski 1961		4	0.55	23	0.00	9	0.21	6	0.71	19	0.52	9	0.61
Magaloff 1978		26	0.45	46	0.00	40	0.08	37	0.28	46	0.09	40	0.16
Magin 1975		30	0.44	38	0.00	41	0.10	36	0.29	42	0.13	37	0.19
Michalowski 1933		86	0.18	72	0.00	83	0.04	79	0.04	56	0.04	66	0.04
Milkina 1970		13	0.50	49	0.00	13	0.16	11	0.63	33	0.32	19	0.45
Mohovich 1999		32	0.43	41	0.00	26	0.06	26	0.40	38	0.19	32	0.28
Moravec 1969		42	0.41	21	0.00	53	0.05	58	0.05	67	0.05	58	0.05
Morozova 2008		27	0.45	28	0.00	36	0.11	29	0.36	27	0.34	28	0.35
Neighaus 1950		53	0.36	33	0.00	69	0.04	67	0.04	41	0.11	54	0.07
Niedzielski 1931		80	0.24	78	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	80	0.03	89	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		28	0.44	64	0.00	47	0.09	48	0.09	36	0.27	42	0.16
Osinska 1989		18	0.47	8	0.01	15	0.20	12	0.63	38	0.35	16	0.47
Pachmann 1927		62	0.33	89	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	11	0.55	38	0.17
Paderewski 1930		83	0.23	61	0.00	75	0.04	68	0.04	37	0.16	51	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		75	0.27	90	0.00	77	0.04	80	0.04	73	0.03	80	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		58	0.35	50	0.00	30	0.06	32	0.33	8	0.60	20	0.44
Poblocka 1999		20	0.47	30	0.00	25	0.06	33	0.33	38	0.24	31	0.28
Rabcewiczowa 1932		17	0.49	36	0.00	16	0.13	17	0.56	17	0.41	15	0.48
Rachmaninoff 1923		65	0.32	91	0.00	39	0.06	46	0.13	74	0.03	55	0.06
Rangell 2001		11	0.51	11	0.01	7	0.15	13	0.59	6	0.66	7	0.62
Richter 1976		22	0.46	59	0.00	23	0.06	23	0.41	22	0.51	18	0.46
Rosen 1989		54	0.36	55	0.00	56	0.04	64	0.04	75	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		60	0.34	34	0.00	73	0.05	62	0.05	58	0.04	70	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		67	0.32	60	0.00	71	0.04	78	0.04	43	0.11	53	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		79	0.25	67	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	51	0.05	77	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		73	0.30	27	0.00	72	0.04	75	0.04	62	0.05	78	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		78	0.25	85	0.00	79	0.03	83	0.03	63	0.04	87	0.03
Rossi 2007		56	0.36	12	0.01	34	0.06	39	0.24	8	0.53	25	0.36
Rubinstein 1939		16	0.49	13	0.01	6	0.17	10	0.65	8	0.59	6	0.62
Rubinstein 1952		7	0.53	4	0.05	3	0.20	4	0.74	13	0.58	3	0.66
Rubinstein 1966		3	0.55	7	0.01	4	0.26	3	0.79	19	0.61	2	0.69
Schilhawsky 1960		39	0.42	56	0.00	29	0.06	21	0.45	21	0.49	17	0.47
Shebanova 2002		43	0.40	62	0.00	52	0.05	53	0.05	56	0.05	61	0.05
Smith 1975		66	0.32	86	0.00	60	0.04	71	0.04	62	0.05	64	0.04
Sokolov 2002		29	0.44	20	0.00	51	0.06	52	0.06	44	0.12	50	0.08
Sztompka 1959		15	0.49	9	0.01	19	0.15	15	0.56	13	0.63	10	0.59
Tomsic 1995		50	0.38	65	0.00	54	0.05	57	0.05	61	0.06	60	0.05
Uninsky 1932		74	0.27	19	0.00	58	0.04	69	0.04	58	0.04	69	0.04
Uninsky 1971		36	0.43	16	0.00	33	0.09	27	0.40	38	0.27	29	0.33
Wasowski 1980		59	0.34	40	0.00	70	0.05	54	0.05	75	0.05	59	0.05
Zak 1937		48	0.39	42	0.00	46	0.08	50	0.08	45	0.10	48	0.09
Zak 1951		37	0.42	25	0.00	43	0.09	40	0.24	38	0.11	41	0.16
Average		2	0.61	2	0.23	2	0.39	1	0.84	52	0.07	35	0.24
Random 1		91	-0.07	79	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	36	0.20	73	0.04
Random 2		88	0.09	80	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	20	0.32	56	0.06
Random 3		90	-0.06	63	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	11	0.38	49	0.09

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).