Harasiewicz 1955

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		60	0.42	68	0.00	65	0.05	57	0.05	25	0.39	55	0.14
Anderszewski 2003		14	0.61	9	0.01	20	0.14	16	0.60	11	0.61	17	0.60
Ashkenazy 1981		64	0.40	24	0.00	61	0.04	67	0.04	34	0.23	68	0.10
Bacha 2000		77	0.36	35	0.00	81	0.04	66	0.04	39	0.22	71	0.09
Badura 1965		56	0.44	45	0.00	58	0.07	50	0.07	24	0.35	52	0.16
Barbosa 1983		7	0.66	12	0.00	7	0.17	7	0.66	6	0.68	10	0.67
Biret 1990		37	0.53	42	0.00	34	0.11	32	0.42	26	0.42	38	0.42
Blet 2003		61	0.41	69	0.00	73	0.03	82	0.03	47	0.07	81	0.05
Block 1995		54	0.46	10	0.01	56	0.04	65	0.04	26	0.35	58	0.12
Blumental 1952		33	0.55	32	0.00	33	0.09	31	0.43	19	0.55	30	0.49
Boshniakovich 1969		28	0.57	37	0.00	21	0.15	18	0.57	11	0.53	25	0.55
Brailowsky 1960		45	0.49	14	0.00	49	0.07	49	0.07	33	0.38	49	0.16
Bunin 1987		78	0.36	73	0.00	84	0.05	64	0.05	70	0.04	86	0.04
Bunin 1987b		79	0.35	81	0.00	83	0.03	80	0.03	55	0.05	83	0.04
Chiu 1999		63	0.41	85	0.00	74	0.03	88	0.03	44	0.13	80	0.06
Cohen 1997		75	0.37	21	0.00	66	0.04	73	0.04	27	0.20	73	0.09
Cortot 1951		62	0.41	19	0.00	59	0.06	53	0.06	11	0.58	46	0.19
Csalog 1996		52	0.46	55	0.00	47	0.07	48	0.07	28	0.32	53	0.15
Czerny 1949		5	0.67	5	0.02	6	0.37	10	0.64	5	0.77	7	0.70
Czerny 1990		2	0.74	2	0.20	2	0.54	2	0.84	2	0.86	1	0.85
Duchoud 2007		88	0.17	86	0.00	88	0.03	86	0.03	76	0.03	90	0.03
Ezaki 2006		8	0.64	20	0.00	13	0.11	15	0.61	10	0.60	15	0.60
Falvay 1989		13	0.62	44	0.00	22	0.15	17	0.60	18	0.58	18	0.59
Farrell 1958		44	0.50	33	0.00	39	0.09	37	0.36	19	0.53	36	0.44
Ferenczy 1958		47	0.48	64	0.00	50	0.06	51	0.06	24	0.48	48	0.17
Fliere 1977		24	0.58	49	0.00	30	0.08	27	0.50	23	0.44	34	0.47
Fou 1978		11	0.63	63	0.00	10	0.15	8	0.66	2	0.70	9	0.68
Francois 1956		67	0.39	82	0.00	64	0.05	59	0.05	33	0.25	63	0.11
Friedman 1923		76	0.37	47	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	30	0.31	70	0.10
Friedman 1923b		70	0.38	60	0.00	70	0.03	85	0.03	23	0.40	61	0.11
Friedman 1930		68	0.39	61	0.00	71	0.03	76	0.03	35	0.24	75	0.08
Garcia 2007		80	0.35	65	0.00	62	0.04	70	0.04	31	0.34	57	0.12
Garcia 2007b		58	0.44	11	0.01	45	0.08	45	0.15	19	0.47	44	0.27
Gierzod 1998		3	0.71	6	0.02	3	0.30	3	0.82	3	0.81	2	0.81
Gornostaeva 1994		36	0.54	74	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	31	0.34	54	0.15
Groot 1988		72	0.38	70	0.00	60	0.05	55	0.05	54	0.05	82	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Hatto 1993		12	0.62	50	0.00	9	0.17	6	0.67	5	0.73	8	0.70
Hatto 1997		16	0.60	75	0.00	15	0.09	11	0.63	8	0.67	12	0.65
Horowitz 1949		85	0.31	43	0.00	82	0.03	87	0.03	51	0.06	84	0.04
Indjic 1988		15	0.60	39	0.00	19	0.13	13	0.62	7	0.69	11	0.65
Kapell 1951		18	0.59	7	0.01	23	0.13	22	0.55	17	0.57	23	0.56
Kissin 1993		9	0.64	31	0.00	11	0.12	9	0.64	2	0.79	6	0.71
Kushner 1989		20	0.59	40	0.00	16	0.09	21	0.56	19	0.50	27	0.53
Luisada 1991		55	0.44	66	0.00	69	0.03	84	0.03	71	0.04	87	0.03
Lushtak 2004		19	0.59	15	0.00	24	0.14	14	0.61	7	0.64	14	0.62
Malcuzynski 1961		17	0.60	13	0.00	17	0.09	20	0.57	14	0.55	24	0.56
Magaloff 1978		35	0.54	29	0.00	37	0.08	39	0.32	10	0.56	37	0.42
Magin 1975		32	0.55	22	0.00	38	0.09	36	0.38	19	0.51	35	0.44
Michalowski 1933		87	0.22	36	0.00	87	0.03	78	0.03	47	0.04	88	0.03
Milkina 1970		10	0.64	51	0.00	8	0.22	12	0.62	14	0.58	16	0.60
Mohovich 1999		42	0.51	76	0.00	42	0.09	43	0.21	33	0.27	45	0.24
Moravec 1969		29	0.57	23	0.00	35	0.10	35	0.40	10	0.57	31	0.48
Morozova 2008		46	0.48	67	0.00	48	0.08	46	0.08	25	0.38	47	0.17
Neighaus 1950		66	0.39	71	0.00	80	0.05	63	0.05	34	0.22	69	0.10
Niedzielski 1931		82	0.33	62	0.00	68	0.04	69	0.04	33	0.20	72	0.09
Ohlsson 1999		48	0.47	79	0.00	51	0.05	54	0.05	30	0.36	56	0.13
Osinska 1989		4	0.70	4	0.04	4	0.32	4	0.79	4	0.77	4	0.78
Pachmann 1927		83	0.33	87	0.00	85	0.04	71	0.04	41	0.14	77	0.07
Paderewski 1930		86	0.23	88	0.00	86	0.04	68	0.04	53	0.05	85	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		65	0.40	83	0.00	67	0.04	75	0.04	34	0.25	64	0.10
Pierdomenico 2008		59	0.42	52	0.00	52	0.05	62	0.05	12	0.54	51	0.16
Poblocka 1999		22	0.59	80	0.00	31	0.11	29	0.47	17	0.50	32	0.48
Rabcewiczowa 1932		51	0.47	16	0.00	25	0.11	38	0.34	10	0.48	39	0.40
Rachmaninoff 1923		57	0.44	72	0.00	57	0.06	52	0.06	39	0.21	60	0.11
Rangell 2001		40	0.52	25	0.00	41	0.07	41	0.24	8	0.60	40	0.38
Richter 1976		30	0.55	58	0.00	27	0.12	34	0.41	19	0.56	33	0.48
Rosen 1989		49	0.47	53	0.00	54	0.05	56	0.05	44	0.19	67	0.10
Rosenthal 1930		71	0.38	56	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	30	0.36	66	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		73	0.37	41	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	30	0.34	65	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		81	0.33	89	0.00	77	0.04	72	0.04	27	0.33	62	0.11
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.38	77	0.00	75	0.03	77	0.03	40	0.18	79	0.07
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.32	90	0.00	79	0.04	74	0.04	36	0.22	74	0.09
Rossi 2007		74	0.37	46	0.00	63	0.05	61	0.05	34	0.23	59	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		38	0.53	38	0.00	32	0.08	30	0.45	10	0.55	28	0.50
Rubinstein 1952		26	0.57	17	0.00	18	0.11	19	0.57	21	0.51	26	0.54
Rubinstein 1966		6	0.66	3	0.04	5	0.33	5	0.72	6	0.72	5	0.72
Schilhawsky 1960		34	0.54	30	0.00	40	0.10	40	0.27	27	0.42	41	0.34
Shebanova 2002		53	0.46	27	0.00	55	0.05	60	0.05	44	0.12	76	0.08
Smith 1975		39	0.52	34	0.00	44	0.08	44	0.16	18	0.47	43	0.27
Sokolov 2002		50	0.47	84	0.00	53	0.05	58	0.05	13	0.51	50	0.16
Sztompka 1959		21	0.59	54	0.00	12	0.11	24	0.54	12	0.63	20	0.58
Tomsic 1995		41	0.52	26	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.21	19	0.47	42	0.31
Uninsky 1932		43	0.51	28	0.00	14	0.09	23	0.54	2	0.75	13	0.64
Uninsky 1971		27	0.57	48	0.00	28	0.12	28	0.49	6	0.66	21	0.57
Wasowski 1980		23	0.58	18	0.00	26	0.09	26	0.52	5	0.61	22	0.56
Zak 1937		25	0.58	8	0.01	29	0.09	25	0.53	7	0.66	19	0.59
Zak 1951		31	0.55	57	0.00	36	0.11	33	0.41	12	0.59	29	0.49
Average		1	0.77	1	0.55	1	0.54	1	0.89	9	0.70	3	0.79
Random 1		90	-0.04	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	59	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		89	0.04	78	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	43	0.08	89	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.07	59	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	25	0.27	78	0.07

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).