Perlemuter 1992

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

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).