Ohlsson 1999

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		22	0.47	24	0.00	20	0.07	24	0.40	9	0.52	15	0.46
Anderszewski 2003		43	0.42	35	0.00	19	0.08	28	0.38	42	0.17	25	0.25
Ashkenazy 1981		38	0.44	23	0.00	49	0.05	49	0.05	28	0.26	51	0.11
Bacha 2000		51	0.39	79	0.00	56	0.04	70	0.04	21	0.39	45	0.12
Badura 1965		26	0.46	3	0.05	6	0.21	9	0.58	3	0.61	2	0.59
Barbosa 1983		24	0.46	52	0.00	34	0.08	29	0.36	51	0.08	33	0.17
Biret 1990		8	0.50	19	0.01	11	0.10	8	0.58	27	0.38	13	0.47
Blet 2003		48	0.39	22	0.00	48	0.06	47	0.06	27	0.24	47	0.12
Block 1995		76	0.30	71	0.00	66	0.05	54	0.05	61	0.05	65	0.05
Blumental 1952		75	0.30	83	0.00	75	0.03	77	0.03	75	0.04	84	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		15	0.48	21	0.00	15	0.13	22	0.43	40	0.14	26	0.25
Brailowsky 1960		79	0.28	84	0.00	82	0.02	85	0.02	53	0.06	77	0.03
Bunin 1987		57	0.36	40	0.00	33	0.07	38	0.23	26	0.28	27	0.25
Bunin 1987b		56	0.37	25	0.00	29	0.09	34	0.31	15	0.44	17	0.37
Chiu 1999		45	0.41	45	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	31	0.23	32	0.17
Cohen 1997		65	0.33	20	0.01	57	0.04	67	0.04	19	0.27	55	0.10
Cortot 1951		81	0.26	36	0.00	79	0.02	84	0.02	60	0.05	86	0.03
Csalog 1996		71	0.31	80	0.00	61	0.04	66	0.04	58	0.05	73	0.04
Czerny 1949		28	0.45	53	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.18	54	0.07	50	0.11
Czerny 1990		16	0.48	58	0.00	39	0.07	35	0.29	48	0.09	35	0.16
Duchoud 2007		9	0.49	7	0.02	8	0.12	16	0.48	2	0.77	1	0.61
Ezaki 2006		35	0.45	41	0.00	18	0.08	17	0.46	41	0.17	22	0.28
Falvay 1989		21	0.47	27	0.00	28	0.07	26	0.39	66	0.04	46	0.12
Farrell 1958		37	0.44	47	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.27	48	0.09	34	0.16
Ferenczy 1958		78	0.28	85	0.00	84	0.03	75	0.03	76	0.03	81	0.03
Fliere 1977		31	0.45	66	0.00	27	0.07	23	0.42	78	0.04	40	0.13
Fou 1978		46	0.40	63	0.00	60	0.04	62	0.04	72	0.04	70	0.04
Francois 1956		49	0.39	26	0.00	52	0.04	69	0.04	27	0.29	53	0.11
Friedman 1923		60	0.35	75	0.00	65	0.05	60	0.05	29	0.32	44	0.13
Friedman 1923b		62	0.35	28	0.00	64	0.04	63	0.04	31	0.27	56	0.10
Friedman 1930		52	0.38	38	0.00	58	0.05	50	0.05	28	0.31	48	0.12
Garcia 2007		74	0.30	76	0.00	54	0.04	72	0.04	37	0.24	54	0.10
Garcia 2007b		64	0.33	59	0.00	36	0.08	42	0.17	41	0.14	37	0.15
Gierzod 1998		5	0.53	29	0.00	7	0.10	7	0.58	46	0.08	29	0.22
Gornostaeva 1994		61	0.35	64	0.00	71	0.05	53	0.05	87	0.02	85	0.03
Groot 1988		66	0.33	31	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.13	53	0.05	58	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		17	0.47	60	0.00	35	0.11	30	0.36	54	0.05	43	0.13
Hatto 1993		18	0.47	32	0.00	22	0.07	21	0.44	42	0.17	24	0.27
Hatto 1997		25	0.46	61	0.00	30	0.08	27	0.39	45	0.09	31	0.19
Horowitz 1949		87	0.22	65	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	71	0.04	78	0.03
Indjic 1988		23	0.47	48	0.00	23	0.10	20	0.44	42	0.16	23	0.27
Kapell 1951		47	0.40	33	0.00	55	0.04	68	0.04	57	0.06	64	0.05
Kissin 1993		29	0.45	51	0.00	41	0.08	39	0.22	51	0.08	42	0.13
Kushner 1989		2	0.57	4	0.05	5	0.23	2	0.72	26	0.42	5	0.55
Luisada 1991		41	0.42	12	0.02	32	0.08	31	0.33	26	0.37	18	0.35
Lushtak 2004		11	0.49	11	0.02	2	0.17	4	0.64	18	0.52	3	0.58
Malcuzynski 1961		33	0.45	77	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.15	63	0.05	57	0.09
Magaloff 1978		39	0.44	5	0.03	21	0.08	32	0.32	43	0.16	28	0.23
Magin 1975		50	0.39	62	0.00	59	0.05	56	0.05	68	0.04	68	0.04
Michalowski 1933		88	0.19	72	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	49	0.04	80	0.03
Milkina 1970		7	0.50	2	0.05	3	0.20	6	0.61	27	0.41	9	0.50
Mohovich 1999		42	0.42	39	0.00	26	0.07	25	0.40	44	0.10	30	0.20
Moravec 1969		63	0.35	86	0.00	77	0.03	74	0.03	77	0.03	76	0.03
Morozova 2008		27	0.46	42	0.00	17	0.09	14	0.50	21	0.44	12	0.47
Neighaus 1950		53	0.37	56	0.00	68	0.05	61	0.05	44	0.10	60	0.07
Niedzielski 1931		72	0.31	49	0.00	72	0.05	55	0.05	50	0.06	63	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Osinska 1989		4	0.54	8	0.02	4	0.25	3	0.67	27	0.49	4	0.57
Pachmann 1927		85	0.25	73	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	54	0.05	71	0.04
Paderewski 1930		83	0.25	81	0.00	80	0.03	79	0.03	63	0.04	79	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		55	0.37	43	0.00	50	0.05	59	0.05	17	0.42	38	0.14
Pierdomenico 2008		59	0.36	57	0.00	63	0.05	52	0.05	32	0.33	41	0.13
Poblocka 1999		54	0.37	30	0.00	67	0.05	58	0.05	60	0.07	61	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		67	0.33	69	0.00	62	0.05	57	0.05	75	0.03	69	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		86	0.23	78	0.00	74	0.03	78	0.03	60	0.05	66	0.04
Rangell 2001		40	0.43	37	0.00	47	0.05	48	0.05	35	0.24	52	0.11
Richter 1976		30	0.45	50	0.00	46	0.08	46	0.08	46	0.07	59	0.07
Rosen 1989		6	0.51	9	0.02	14	0.11	13	0.52	16	0.48	10	0.50
Rosenthal 1930		70	0.32	82	0.00	73	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.04	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		73	0.31	46	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	50	0.05	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.26	90	0.00	88	0.03	76	0.03	72	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		77	0.29	54	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	68	0.04	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.26	74	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	75	0.03	91	0.02
Rossi 2007		68	0.33	14	0.01	53	0.04	71	0.04	29	0.29	49	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		44	0.41	44	0.00	51	0.04	64	0.04	56	0.05	67	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		20	0.47	34	0.00	25	0.06	18	0.45	53	0.06	36	0.16
Rubinstein 1966		3	0.54	13	0.02	9	0.12	5	0.64	36	0.33	14	0.46
Schilhawsky 1960		58	0.36	67	0.00	70	0.04	65	0.04	66	0.04	74	0.04
Shebanova 2002		13	0.49	16	0.01	16	0.08	15	0.49	15	0.47	11	0.48
Smith 1975		69	0.33	87	0.00	69	0.05	51	0.05	59	0.05	62	0.05
Sokolov 2002		12	0.49	17	0.01	40	0.08	40	0.21	25	0.43	20	0.30
Sztompka 1959		32	0.45	6	0.03	37	0.06	37	0.26	34	0.34	21	0.30
Tomsic 1995		19	0.47	15	0.01	10	0.10	11	0.53	15	0.49	7	0.51
Uninsky 1932		84	0.25	88	0.00	76	0.04	73	0.04	63	0.04	75	0.04
Uninsky 1971		34	0.45	70	0.00	24	0.09	19	0.44	29	0.37	16	0.40
Wasowski 1980		36	0.44	18	0.01	31	0.07	33	0.32	66	0.05	39	0.13
Zak 1937		14	0.48	10	0.02	13	0.15	12	0.52	18	0.48	8	0.50
Zak 1951		10	0.49	55	0.00	12	0.11	10	0.56	21	0.50	6	0.53
Average		1	0.64	1	0.55	1	0.55	1	0.83	45	0.14	19	0.34
Random 1		90	-0.07	68	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	60	0.03	89	0.02
Random 2		89	0.00	91	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	42	0.09	82	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.10	89	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	60	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).