Luisada 1991

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		11	0.53	11	0.01	4	0.12	9	0.61	2	0.69	2	0.65
Anderszewski 2003		37	0.43	63	0.00	42	0.05	38	0.20	62	0.05	45	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		39	0.43	84	0.00	54	0.04	74	0.04	27	0.27	46	0.10
Bacha 2000		79	0.28	44	0.00	68	0.04	77	0.04	67	0.03	80	0.03
Badura 1965		71	0.33	56	0.00	72	0.05	56	0.05	65	0.04	71	0.04
Barbosa 1983		10	0.53	28	0.00	9	0.14	16	0.50	61	0.06	30	0.17
Biret 1990		32	0.44	15	0.01	18	0.09	19	0.49	43	0.11	25	0.23
Blet 2003		12	0.51	17	0.01	13	0.15	11	0.58	2	0.62	3	0.60
Block 1995		59	0.36	89	0.00	52	0.04	61	0.04	60	0.05	73	0.04
Blumental 1952		7	0.54	6	0.04	8	0.16	4	0.65	20	0.55	4	0.60
Boshniakovich 1969		18	0.48	10	0.01	22	0.19	20	0.47	43	0.11	24	0.23
Brailowsky 1960		2	0.58	2	0.06	2	0.22	2	0.73	9	0.66	1	0.69
Bunin 1987		38	0.43	32	0.00	31	0.07	31	0.28	39	0.13	28	0.19
Bunin 1987b		49	0.39	85	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.14	46	0.07	44	0.10
Chiu 1999		74	0.32	71	0.00	64	0.05	54	0.05	64	0.05	56	0.05
Cohen 1997		60	0.36	38	0.00	51	0.04	59	0.04	23	0.23	47	0.10
Cortot 1951		84	0.21	30	0.00	83	0.03	78	0.03	56	0.05	76	0.04
Csalog 1996		62	0.36	50	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	65	0.04	60	0.05
Czerny 1949		64	0.35	90	0.00	73	0.03	80	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.03
Czerny 1990		54	0.38	86	0.00	62	0.04	67	0.04	69	0.04	74	0.04
Duchoud 2007		88	0.16	42	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	85	0.02	90	0.02
Ezaki 2006		16	0.50	31	0.00	24	0.09	27	0.37	54	0.06	33	0.15
Falvay 1989		5	0.55	8	0.04	6	0.18	7	0.61	40	0.32	11	0.44
Farrell 1958		85	0.21	70	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		28	0.46	5	0.05	23	0.10	24	0.38	23	0.49	12	0.43
Fliere 1977		9	0.54	9	0.02	12	0.19	8	0.61	39	0.24	14	0.38
Fou 1978		19	0.48	51	0.00	30	0.07	32	0.26	59	0.05	42	0.11
Francois 1956		75	0.31	52	0.00	80	0.05	50	0.05	69	0.04	78	0.04
Friedman 1923		65	0.35	60	0.00	47	0.06	47	0.06	23	0.41	32	0.16
Friedman 1923b		66	0.35	35	0.00	40	0.05	36	0.21	20	0.45	19	0.31
Friedman 1930		67	0.35	41	0.00	32	0.09	29	0.31	18	0.46	15	0.38
Garcia 2007		83	0.21	91	0.00	84	0.04	76	0.04	74	0.04	70	0.04
Garcia 2007b		72	0.33	57	0.00	57	0.05	55	0.05	69	0.04	79	0.04
Gierzod 1998		6	0.55	19	0.01	11	0.16	10	0.60	42	0.20	17	0.35
Gornostaeva 1994		14	0.50	26	0.00	21	0.12	22	0.45	36	0.25	18	0.34
Groot 1988		48	0.39	24	0.00	38	0.05	37	0.20	57	0.05	48	0.10
Harasiewicz 1955		31	0.44	65	0.00	53	0.04	71	0.04	84	0.03	86	0.03
Hatto 1993		26	0.47	61	0.00	17	0.12	21	0.46	45	0.12	26	0.23
Hatto 1997		21	0.48	87	0.00	16	0.10	17	0.49	42	0.12	22	0.24
Horowitz 1949		33	0.44	4	0.06	10	0.14	14	0.51	3	0.63	6	0.57
Indjic 1988		20	0.48	27	0.00	15	0.15	18	0.49	44	0.15	20	0.27
Kapell 1951		52	0.38	77	0.00	67	0.04	69	0.04	75	0.03	82	0.03
Kissin 1993		43	0.42	36	0.00	61	0.05	52	0.05	70	0.04	66	0.04
Kushner 1989		24	0.47	75	0.00	26	0.09	23	0.39	68	0.04	39	0.12
Luisada 1991		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Lushtak 2004		50	0.39	66	0.00	56	0.05	51	0.05	70	0.04	72	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		73	0.33	78	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	85	0.02	89	0.02
Magaloff 1978		34	0.44	29	0.00	39	0.06	35	0.22	55	0.06	41	0.11
Magin 1975		17	0.49	22	0.01	29	0.07	30	0.30	53	0.05	38	0.12
Michalowski 1933		80	0.28	21	0.01	81	0.04	64	0.04	19	0.40	36	0.13
Milkina 1970		4	0.56	7	0.04	3	0.14	3	0.69	39	0.24	13	0.41
Mohovich 1999		3	0.56	12	0.01	7	0.15	5	0.65	30	0.37	9	0.49
Moravec 1969		27	0.46	79	0.00	33	0.06	34	0.24	56	0.06	37	0.12
Morozova 2008		55	0.37	33	0.00	59	0.04	66	0.04	72	0.04	68	0.04
Neighaus 1950		77	0.30	82	0.00	78	0.03	79	0.03	65	0.04	85	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		63	0.35	37	0.00	50	0.05	53	0.05	19	0.38	34	0.14
Ohlsson 1999		40	0.42	13	0.01	25	0.09	26	0.37	31	0.33	16	0.35
Osinska 1989		25	0.47	45	0.00	27	0.10	25	0.38	49	0.07	31	0.16
Pachmann 1927		82	0.22	83	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03
Paderewski 1930		86	0.19	48	0.00	70	0.04	65	0.04	42	0.13	51	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		53	0.38	67	0.00	49	0.04	60	0.04	30	0.30	40	0.11
Pierdomenico 2008		87	0.18	80	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02
Poblocka 1999		15	0.50	14	0.01	28	0.09	28	0.31	46	0.11	29	0.18
Rabcewiczowa 1932		78	0.30	46	0.00	66	0.04	72	0.04	82	0.03	81	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		41	0.42	16	0.01	37	0.06	40	0.19	36	0.23	27	0.21
Rangell 2001		70	0.33	68	0.00	79	0.04	75	0.04	69	0.05	75	0.04
Richter 1976		47	0.40	69	0.00	60	0.04	62	0.04	58	0.04	65	0.04
Rosen 1989		22	0.47	34	0.00	20	0.15	15	0.50	21	0.43	10	0.46
Rosenthal 1930		57	0.37	58	0.00	74	0.03	82	0.03	45	0.10	61	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		68	0.35	20	0.01	75	0.03	83	0.03	46	0.07	59	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		76	0.30	40	0.00	76	0.03	85	0.03	47	0.05	77	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		42	0.42	72	0.00	41	0.05	39	0.19	28	0.30	23	0.24
Rosenthal 1931d		51	0.39	64	0.00	63	0.06	48	0.06	30	0.31	35	0.14
Rossi 2007		81	0.27	76	0.00	82	0.04	68	0.04	73	0.04	63	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		56	0.37	53	0.00	69	0.04	70	0.04	69	0.04	64	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		36	0.43	25	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.14	77	0.03	55	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		46	0.41	88	0.00	55	0.04	63	0.04	75	0.04	67	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		29	0.45	54	0.00	36	0.05	44	0.14	60	0.04	52	0.07
Shebanova 2002		45	0.41	23	0.01	35	0.05	41	0.18	63	0.04	50	0.08
Smith 1975		13	0.51	18	0.01	14	0.12	12	0.55	16	0.51	8	0.53
Sokolov 2002		23	0.47	62	0.00	19	0.14	13	0.53	9	0.56	7	0.54
Sztompka 1959		58	0.36	55	0.00	71	0.05	58	0.05	63	0.05	58	0.05
Tomsic 1995		69	0.34	73	0.00	48	0.05	49	0.05	46	0.08	53	0.06
Uninsky 1932		61	0.36	47	0.00	65	0.04	73	0.04	52	0.05	69	0.04
Uninsky 1971		30	0.45	49	0.00	34	0.06	33	0.25	57	0.05	43	0.11
Wasowski 1980		8	0.54	3	0.06	5	0.11	6	0.62	10	0.55	5	0.58
Zak 1937		44	0.42	39	0.00	58	0.05	57	0.05	55	0.05	57	0.05
Zak 1951		35	0.43	74	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.18	51	0.05	49	0.09
Average		1	0.65	1	0.48	1	0.47	1	0.80	51	0.07	21	0.24
Random 1		90	0.00	81	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	44	0.12	62	0.05
Random 2		89	0.03	59	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	33	0.19	54	0.06
Random 3		91	-0.15	43	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	81	0.02	91	0.01

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).