Magaloff 1978

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		44	0.46	73	0.00	49	0.07	49	0.07	12	0.50	38	0.19
Anderszewski 2003		17	0.53	22	0.00	21	0.10	19	0.47	37	0.29	26	0.37
Ashkenazy 1981		70	0.37	70	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	67	0.03	88	0.03
Bacha 2000		52	0.44	12	0.01	51	0.06	54	0.06	16	0.42	42	0.16
Badura 1965		62	0.39	63	0.00	64	0.05	58	0.05	51	0.06	69	0.05
Barbosa 1983		2	0.57	21	0.01	8	0.17	7	0.64	25	0.41	8	0.51
Biret 1990		16	0.53	25	0.00	9	0.16	13	0.51	30	0.36	18	0.43
Blet 2003		76	0.33	87	0.00	82	0.03	73	0.03	69	0.03	85	0.03
Block 1995		63	0.39	44	0.00	68	0.03	77	0.03	67	0.04	87	0.03
Blumental 1952		10	0.55	27	0.00	20	0.09	15	0.50	30	0.44	13	0.47
Boshniakovich 1969		50	0.44	3	0.02	14	0.12	34	0.30	52	0.06	47	0.13
Brailowsky 1960		3	0.57	7	0.02	10	0.15	12	0.54	18	0.54	6	0.54
Bunin 1987		69	0.37	50	0.00	61	0.06	56	0.06	56	0.05	70	0.05
Bunin 1987b		72	0.36	77	0.00	60	0.03	67	0.03	64	0.05	75	0.04
Chiu 1999		48	0.45	11	0.01	39	0.07	39	0.20	16	0.40	33	0.28
Cohen 1997		78	0.31	54	0.00	76	0.03	74	0.03	56	0.04	89	0.03
Cortot 1951		47	0.45	74	0.00	48	0.06	53	0.06	10	0.61	40	0.19
Csalog 1996		66	0.38	38	0.00	57	0.04	63	0.04	60	0.05	76	0.04
Czerny 1949		23	0.51	57	0.00	27	0.08	17	0.49	31	0.46	12	0.47
Czerny 1990		15	0.53	19	0.01	11	0.13	8	0.59	39	0.40	9	0.49
Duchoud 2007		75	0.33	47	0.00	78	0.03	70	0.03	44	0.17	62	0.07
Ezaki 2006		9	0.55	24	0.00	15	0.11	20	0.45	37	0.21	28	0.31
Falvay 1989		22	0.51	80	0.00	42	0.08	40	0.20	47	0.06	51	0.11
Farrell 1958		46	0.45	59	0.00	46	0.09	46	0.09	37	0.28	43	0.16
Ferenczy 1958		64	0.39	58	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	64	0.05	78	0.04
Fliere 1977		6	0.56	4	0.02	5	0.15	11	0.55	29	0.39	14	0.46
Fou 1978		33	0.48	16	0.01	44	0.06	44	0.15	53	0.05	55	0.09
Francois 1956		71	0.36	36	0.00	59	0.04	61	0.04	37	0.21	56	0.09
Friedman 1923		77	0.31	65	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	54	0.05	81	0.04
Friedman 1923b		79	0.30	68	0.00	80	0.03	71	0.03	45	0.10	71	0.05
Friedman 1930		84	0.27	81	0.00	81	0.03	75	0.03	55	0.06	77	0.04
Garcia 2007		87	0.22	84	0.00	88	0.03	76	0.03	81	0.03	86	0.03
Garcia 2007b		68	0.38	39	0.00	31	0.06	45	0.13	43	0.12	49	0.12
Gierzod 1998		4	0.57	55	0.00	7	0.13	6	0.64	37	0.28	20	0.42
Gornostaeva 1994		42	0.47	52	0.00	47	0.07	52	0.07	51	0.05	65	0.06
Groot 1988		36	0.48	2	0.03	6	0.15	23	0.41	16	0.39	23	0.40
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.54	66	0.00	22	0.14	10	0.56	39	0.32	21	0.42
Hatto 1993		5	0.57	9	0.01	2	0.18	2	0.67	14	0.53	1	0.60
Hatto 1997		8	0.56	10	0.01	4	0.15	4	0.65	18	0.51	3	0.58
Horowitz 1949		74	0.35	88	0.00	72	0.02	84	0.02	23	0.36	57	0.08
Indjic 1988		7	0.56	34	0.00	3	0.17	3	0.66	17	0.52	2	0.59
Kapell 1951		41	0.47	23	0.00	52	0.07	48	0.07	51	0.07	60	0.07
Kissin 1993		34	0.48	53	0.00	43	0.08	42	0.16	45	0.20	41	0.18
Kushner 1989		29	0.49	75	0.00	41	0.06	38	0.25	60	0.05	52	0.11
Luisada 1991		49	0.44	26	0.00	54	0.06	55	0.06	35	0.22	50	0.11
Lushtak 2004		27	0.50	31	0.00	19	0.09	21	0.45	35	0.33	25	0.39
Malcuzynski 1961		31	0.49	82	0.00	33	0.06	29	0.36	54	0.06	44	0.15
Magaloff 1978		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Magin 1975		45	0.46	69	0.00	50	0.07	50	0.07	57	0.05	64	0.06
Michalowski 1933		86	0.24	67	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	24	0.32	58	0.08
Milkina 1970		11	0.54	5	0.02	12	0.14	5	0.64	38	0.24	24	0.39
Mohovich 1999		61	0.40	89	0.00	63	0.04	60	0.04	73	0.04	80	0.04
Moravec 1969		19	0.53	15	0.01	32	0.06	31	0.34	31	0.27	29	0.30
Morozova 2008		38	0.47	43	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.26	31	0.29	35	0.27
Neighaus 1950		73	0.36	56	0.00	75	0.03	68	0.03	40	0.12	66	0.06
Niedzielski 1931		83	0.27	78	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	66	0.04	83	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		51	0.44	17	0.01	45	0.08	43	0.16	32	0.32	37	0.23
Osinska 1989		30	0.49	85	0.00	34	0.07	32	0.33	50	0.06	45	0.14
Pachmann 1927		82	0.28	35	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	35	0.28	53	0.11
Paderewski 1930		88	0.20	32	0.00	71	0.02	87	0.02	28	0.24	61	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		85	0.25	76	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	75	0.03	90	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		81	0.28	90	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	57	0.05	73	0.04
Poblocka 1999		13	0.54	71	0.00	17	0.09	14	0.50	29	0.39	15	0.44
Rabcewiczowa 1932		43	0.47	30	0.00	24	0.07	30	0.36	35	0.24	32	0.29
Rachmaninoff 1923		21	0.51	40	0.00	16	0.09	24	0.41	9	0.55	11	0.47
Rangell 2001		65	0.39	33	0.00	74	0.03	72	0.03	46	0.08	72	0.05
Richter 1976		39	0.47	41	0.00	40	0.06	41	0.18	26	0.41	34	0.27
Rosen 1989		53	0.43	48	0.00	58	0.04	64	0.04	57	0.04	79	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		32	0.49	72	0.00	36	0.05	35	0.29	10	0.65	17	0.43
Rosenthal 1931		57	0.41	61	0.00	55	0.05	57	0.05	28	0.37	46	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		67	0.38	79	0.00	69	0.03	69	0.03	41	0.18	63	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		28	0.50	14	0.01	28	0.07	28	0.36	10	0.63	10	0.48
Rosenthal 1931d		59	0.41	49	0.00	56	0.08	47	0.08	22	0.44	39	0.19
Rossi 2007		80	0.30	51	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	64	0.04	82	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		35	0.48	62	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.25	31	0.33	31	0.29
Rubinstein 1952		20	0.52	20	0.01	25	0.09	22	0.41	42	0.16	36	0.26
Rubinstein 1966		14	0.54	37	0.00	23	0.11	16	0.49	43	0.22	27	0.33
Schilhawsky 1960		24	0.51	83	0.00	35	0.08	27	0.36	22	0.49	19	0.42
Shebanova 2002		25	0.51	18	0.01	29	0.07	26	0.37	19	0.43	22	0.40
Smith 1975		26	0.50	60	0.00	30	0.08	25	0.39	17	0.47	16	0.43
Sokolov 2002		55	0.42	28	0.00	62	0.04	62	0.04	51	0.06	67	0.05
Sztompka 1959		56	0.41	29	0.00	53	0.07	51	0.07	41	0.21	48	0.12
Tomsic 1995		54	0.42	45	0.00	67	0.05	59	0.05	60	0.06	68	0.05
Uninsky 1932		40	0.47	8	0.01	18	0.08	18	0.48	5	0.70	4	0.58
Uninsky 1971		18	0.53	6	0.02	13	0.11	9	0.57	15	0.54	5	0.55
Wasowski 1980		37	0.47	13	0.01	26	0.08	33	0.32	37	0.27	30	0.29
Zak 1937		58	0.41	42	0.00	70	0.03	80	0.03	50	0.05	74	0.04
Zak 1951		60	0.40	46	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	61	0.04	84	0.03
Average		1	0.70	1	0.68	1	0.67	1	0.84	34	0.34	7	0.53
Random 1		91	-0.12	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	71	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.12	64	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	2	0.53	54	0.10
Random 3		90	-0.02	86	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	16	0.33	59	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).