Lushtak 2004

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		86	0.23	75	0.00	86	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03	89	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		12	0.56	29	0.00	18	0.07	9	0.59	19	0.51	11	0.55
Ashkenazy 1981		76	0.32	76	0.00	68	0.04	79	0.04	29	0.26	71	0.10
Bacha 2000		73	0.34	81	0.00	78	0.05	59	0.05	22	0.38	48	0.14
Badura 1965		61	0.40	62	0.00	62	0.04	73	0.04	26	0.35	58	0.12
Barbosa 1983		14	0.55	4	0.03	11	0.11	20	0.50	24	0.43	25	0.46
Biret 1990		34	0.49	24	0.00	21	0.07	19	0.51	24	0.43	23	0.47
Blet 2003		60	0.40	86	0.00	67	0.04	74	0.04	22	0.26	70	0.10
Block 1995		33	0.49	57	0.00	43	0.07	43	0.18	13	0.51	41	0.30
Blumental 1952		49	0.43	87	0.00	66	0.05	58	0.05	61	0.05	76	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		51	0.43	63	0.00	38	0.08	38	0.26	63	0.05	63	0.11
Brailowsky 1960		30	0.50	17	0.01	15	0.07	40	0.23	30	0.42	40	0.31
Bunin 1987		54	0.42	64	0.00	42	0.09	42	0.19	12	0.47	42	0.30
Bunin 1987b		57	0.41	30	0.00	41	0.09	41	0.21	11	0.52	38	0.33
Chiu 1999		55	0.42	48	0.00	64	0.04	78	0.04	35	0.20	73	0.09
Cohen 1997		71	0.35	53	0.00	76	0.04	68	0.04	16	0.31	64	0.11
Cortot 1951		75	0.32	8	0.02	61	0.04	66	0.04	41	0.23	72	0.10
Csalog 1996		39	0.46	33	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	35	0.21	69	0.10
Czerny 1949		27	0.50	22	0.00	31	0.09	36	0.31	30	0.50	34	0.39
Czerny 1990		11	0.56	14	0.01	20	0.10	17	0.52	34	0.47	20	0.49
Duchoud 2007		74	0.33	35	0.00	56	0.05	61	0.05	5	0.59	44	0.17
Ezaki 2006		18	0.53	69	0.00	32	0.09	29	0.40	32	0.27	37	0.33
Falvay 1989		7	0.58	7	0.02	9	0.14	5	0.66	14	0.61	5	0.63
Farrell 1958		21	0.51	28	0.00	26	0.11	22	0.48	14	0.58	15	0.53
Ferenczy 1958		58	0.41	68	0.00	70	0.03	87	0.03	42	0.15	74	0.07
Fliere 1977		9	0.57	23	0.00	6	0.15	13	0.56	13	0.51	14	0.53
Fou 1978		52	0.43	70	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	37	0.19	56	0.12
Francois 1956		56	0.42	77	0.00	55	0.05	55	0.05	9	0.52	45	0.16
Friedman 1923		67	0.36	83	0.00	73	0.04	80	0.04	28	0.32	66	0.11
Friedman 1923b		68	0.36	84	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	25	0.39	65	0.11
Friedman 1930		69	0.36	78	0.00	74	0.04	69	0.04	46	0.07	75	0.05
Garcia 2007		77	0.31	71	0.00	81	0.05	60	0.05	65	0.04	84	0.04
Garcia 2007b		48	0.43	85	0.00	39	0.07	39	0.24	21	0.46	39	0.33
Gierzod 1998		8	0.58	19	0.00	7	0.11	8	0.61	25	0.44	16	0.52
Gornostaeva 1994		23	0.51	27	0.00	37	0.07	32	0.35	23	0.41	35	0.38
Groot 1988		46	0.44	10	0.01	12	0.08	26	0.42	13	0.42	30	0.42
Harasiewicz 1955		4	0.59	5	0.02	10	0.15	7	0.64	14	0.61	7	0.62
Hatto 1993		17	0.54	82	0.00	23	0.09	15	0.54	17	0.50	17	0.52
Hatto 1997		16	0.54	40	0.00	17	0.07	12	0.56	13	0.53	13	0.54
Horowitz 1949		84	0.27	58	0.00	84	0.04	77	0.04	66	0.04	81	0.04
Indjic 1988		15	0.55	36	0.00	22	0.08	14	0.55	16	0.53	12	0.54
Kapell 1951		19	0.52	37	0.00	30	0.09	27	0.42	28	0.46	27	0.44
Kissin 1993		20	0.51	79	0.00	36	0.09	34	0.34	20	0.52	29	0.42
Kushner 1989		10	0.56	16	0.01	8	0.12	6	0.66	16	0.51	8	0.58
Luisada 1991		64	0.39	80	0.00	77	0.04	70	0.04	51	0.05	77	0.04
Lushtak 2004		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Malcuzynski 1961		29	0.50	26	0.00	29	0.11	28	0.41	34	0.37	33	0.39
Magaloff 1978		26	0.50	45	0.00	35	0.09	35	0.33	21	0.45	32	0.39
Magin 1975		32	0.50	31	0.00	34	0.08	30	0.39	20	0.49	26	0.44
Michalowski 1933		88	0.13	54	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	65	0.03	88	0.03
Milkina 1970		24	0.51	13	0.01	14	0.08	16	0.53	28	0.40	24	0.46
Mohovich 1999		28	0.50	65	0.00	25	0.12	24	0.45	25	0.43	28	0.44
Moravec 1969		36	0.49	46	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	38	0.18	46	0.15
Morozova 2008		53	0.43	32	0.00	52	0.05	57	0.05	34	0.23	60	0.11
Neighaus 1950		50	0.43	49	0.00	57	0.04	64	0.04	12	0.52	52	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		85	0.23	59	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	64	0.05	80	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		35	0.49	20	0.00	24	0.10	18	0.52	4	0.64	9	0.58
Osinska 1989		3	0.60	2	0.05	4	0.29	4	0.71	15	0.63	4	0.67
Pachmann 1927		80	0.30	60	0.00	80	0.05	53	0.05	24	0.40	50	0.14
Paderewski 1930		87	0.14	88	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	71	0.04	87	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		78	0.30	66	0.00	63	0.04	67	0.04	35	0.25	67	0.10
Pierdomenico 2008		79	0.30	50	0.00	71	0.03	88	0.03	29	0.36	68	0.10
Poblocka 1999		6	0.58	34	0.00	19	0.10	11	0.56	12	0.56	10	0.56
Rabcewiczowa 1932		38	0.48	38	0.00	13	0.09	21	0.50	8	0.50	18	0.50
Rachmaninoff 1923		63	0.39	39	0.00	59	0.04	71	0.04	57	0.05	79	0.04
Rangell 2001		37	0.49	3	0.03	16	0.07	33	0.35	7	0.62	22	0.47
Richter 1976		40	0.46	15	0.01	44	0.06	44	0.13	30	0.33	43	0.21
Rosen 1989		45	0.44	47	0.00	51	0.05	56	0.05	37	0.26	62	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		65	0.38	21	0.00	60	0.03	83	0.03	24	0.41	61	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		70	0.36	25	0.00	69	0.05	54	0.05	25	0.39	51	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		81	0.30	42	0.00	79	0.05	52	0.05	26	0.34	54	0.13
Rosenthal 1931c		72	0.35	89	0.00	75	0.04	65	0.04	63	0.05	86	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.27	61	0.00	83	0.04	75	0.04	60	0.04	85	0.04
Rossi 2007		83	0.27	51	0.00	82	0.04	72	0.04	71	0.04	78	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		43	0.45	43	0.00	40	0.10	37	0.28	23	0.42	36	0.34
Rubinstein 1952		5	0.59	9	0.02	3	0.32	3	0.73	5	0.68	3	0.70
Rubinstein 1966		2	0.64	11	0.01	2	0.37	2	0.76	5	0.73	1	0.74
Schilhawsky 1960		59	0.40	56	0.00	58	0.04	62	0.04	53	0.05	82	0.04
Shebanova 2002		13	0.56	6	0.02	5	0.13	10	0.58	2	0.68	6	0.63
Smith 1975		42	0.45	55	0.00	53	0.05	51	0.05	34	0.29	55	0.12
Sokolov 2002		62	0.40	67	0.00	65	0.04	76	0.04	33	0.33	59	0.11
Sztompka 1959		44	0.44	41	0.00	49	0.06	47	0.06	33	0.36	47	0.15
Tomsic 1995		47	0.44	90	0.00	50	0.06	49	0.06	25	0.34	49	0.14
Uninsky 1932		66	0.36	72	0.00	54	0.04	63	0.04	27	0.43	53	0.13
Uninsky 1971		41	0.45	44	0.00	47	0.06	48	0.06	40	0.26	57	0.12
Wasowski 1980		22	0.51	12	0.01	33	0.09	31	0.36	23	0.44	31	0.40
Zak 1937		31	0.50	18	0.01	28	0.10	25	0.43	17	0.51	21	0.47
Zak 1951		25	0.51	52	0.00	27	0.08	23	0.46	18	0.53	19	0.49
Average		1	0.70	1	0.63	1	0.62	1	0.85	20	0.58	2	0.70
Random 1		91	-0.14	73	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.02	74	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	41	0.09	83	0.04
Random 3		90	-0.11	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	62	0.03	90	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).