Friedman 1930

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		12	0.62	37	0.00	12	0.14	14	0.52	40	0.19	15	0.31
Anderszewski 2003		21	0.59	76	0.00	31	0.10	36	0.29	57	0.04	41	0.11
Ashkenazy 1981		31	0.56	28	0.00	21	0.17	24	0.45	31	0.26	14	0.34
Bacha 2000		68	0.41	66	0.00	71	0.04	68	0.04	86	0.03	77	0.03
Badura 1965		27	0.57	9	0.01	30	0.09	27	0.44	24	0.38	11	0.41
Barbosa 1983		61	0.44	82	0.00	60	0.06	48	0.06	73	0.04	51	0.05
Biret 1990		44	0.50	39	0.00	43	0.06	44	0.18	61	0.04	48	0.08
Blet 2003		69	0.41	77	0.00	73	0.04	75	0.04	72	0.03	84	0.03
Block 1995		64	0.43	87	0.00	53	0.05	63	0.05	46	0.07	49	0.06
Blumental 1952		36	0.52	50	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.22	60	0.04	46	0.09
Boshniakovich 1969		18	0.59	33	0.00	22	0.09	20	0.48	47	0.08	21	0.20
Brailowsky 1960		52	0.47	31	0.00	65	0.04	67	0.04	55	0.05	60	0.04
Bunin 1987		75	0.38	53	0.00	46	0.09	46	0.09	34	0.28	27	0.16
Bunin 1987b		78	0.36	64	0.00	47	0.07	47	0.07	34	0.28	33	0.14
Chiu 1999		26	0.58	14	0.00	33	0.09	37	0.28	46	0.07	31	0.14
Cohen 1997		85	0.30	78	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	81	0.03	91	0.02
Cortot 1951		81	0.34	79	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	74	0.03	86	0.03
Csalog 1996		87	0.28	21	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03
Czerny 1949		15	0.60	29	0.00	16	0.10	13	0.53	44	0.17	16	0.30
Czerny 1990		7	0.63	17	0.00	15	0.10	10	0.54	54	0.06	25	0.18
Duchoud 2007		76	0.37	20	0.00	70	0.04	77	0.04	48	0.06	53	0.05
Ezaki 2006		30	0.56	83	0.00	35	0.08	34	0.30	58	0.05	38	0.12
Falvay 1989		72	0.39	58	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	74	0.03	78	0.03
Farrell 1958		49	0.48	74	0.00	63	0.04	73	0.04	70	0.04	66	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		50	0.48	13	0.00	55	0.04	71	0.04	48	0.07	52	0.05
Fliere 1977		11	0.62	84	0.00	23	0.09	26	0.44	57	0.05	29	0.15
Fou 1978		60	0.45	54	0.00	64	0.04	76	0.04	78	0.04	67	0.04
Francois 1956		56	0.46	51	0.00	56	0.05	64	0.05	51	0.05	57	0.05
Friedman 1923		2	0.84	2	0.22	2	0.83	1	0.90	2	0.87	2	0.88
Friedman 1923b		1	0.84	1	0.65	1	0.64	2	0.89	2	0.87	1	0.88
Friedman 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Garcia 2007		57	0.46	32	0.00	69	0.04	74	0.04	71	0.04	71	0.04
Garcia 2007b		42	0.51	22	0.00	41	0.07	38	0.24	75	0.04	44	0.10
Gierzod 1998		14	0.60	43	0.00	10	0.20	12	0.53	51	0.06	24	0.18
Gornostaeva 1994		29	0.56	67	0.00	32	0.10	23	0.46	56	0.04	34	0.14
Groot 1988		66	0.42	40	0.00	50	0.05	57	0.05	58	0.05	56	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		8	0.63	3	0.01	14	0.10	11	0.53	61	0.05	28	0.16
Hatto 1993		6	0.66	61	0.00	4	0.29	4	0.65	14	0.43	4	0.53
Hatto 1997		5	0.66	19	0.00	6	0.28	7	0.63	15	0.43	6	0.52
Horowitz 1949		40	0.51	75	0.00	36	0.07	32	0.37	25	0.46	10	0.41
Indjic 1988		4	0.66	30	0.00	5	0.25	6	0.64	15	0.45	3	0.54
Kapell 1951		65	0.43	59	0.00	61	0.06	50	0.06	83	0.03	69	0.04
Kissin 1993		45	0.50	88	0.00	44	0.09	39	0.22	61	0.05	42	0.10
Kushner 1989		39	0.51	8	0.01	52	0.06	54	0.06	82	0.03	68	0.04
Luisada 1991		22	0.58	34	0.00	19	0.10	22	0.46	40	0.16	18	0.27
Lushtak 2004		41	0.51	44	0.00	59	0.06	52	0.06	81	0.03	73	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		51	0.48	60	0.00	38	0.07	45	0.14	49	0.05	47	0.08
Magaloff 1978		59	0.46	68	0.00	51	0.05	59	0.05	65	0.04	63	0.04
Magin 1975		20	0.59	4	0.01	11	0.14	17	0.51	38	0.23	13	0.34
Michalowski 1933		46	0.50	52	0.00	45	0.11	42	0.22	27	0.28	19	0.25
Milkina 1970		43	0.51	5	0.01	39	0.08	40	0.22	51	0.06	40	0.11
Mohovich 1999		58	0.46	23	0.00	62	0.06	53	0.06	79	0.04	55	0.05
Moravec 1969		73	0.38	62	0.00	76	0.05	62	0.05	67	0.04	58	0.04
Morozova 2008		35	0.52	85	0.00	40	0.06	43	0.20	55	0.05	43	0.10
Neighaus 1950		13	0.61	16	0.00	20	0.13	18	0.51	23	0.37	9	0.43
Niedzielski 1931		16	0.60	6	0.01	9	0.16	16	0.52	10	0.47	7	0.49
Ohlsson 1999		34	0.55	25	0.00	28	0.08	33	0.31	56	0.05	39	0.12
Osinska 1989		25	0.58	11	0.00	27	0.08	28	0.42	71	0.04	35	0.13
Pachmann 1927		67	0.42	27	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	75	0.03	88	0.02
Paderewski 1930		70	0.40	46	0.00	72	0.04	69	0.04	78	0.03	81	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		48	0.49	48	0.00	58	0.05	58	0.05	77	0.03	59	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		84	0.30	45	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	74	0.04	79	0.03
Poblocka 1999		55	0.46	69	0.00	48	0.06	51	0.06	54	0.05	50	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		54	0.47	26	0.00	57	0.05	56	0.05	86	0.03	65	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		24	0.58	55	0.00	26	0.08	30	0.40	48	0.06	30	0.15
Rangell 2001		86	0.28	80	0.00	83	0.04	80	0.04	73	0.04	74	0.04
Richter 1976		53	0.47	41	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	45	0.14	45	0.09
Rosen 1989		32	0.56	18	0.00	25	0.12	19	0.49	46	0.08	20	0.20
Rosenthal 1930		71	0.39	70	0.00	74	0.05	55	0.05	71	0.03	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.35	71	0.00	80	0.03	86	0.03	68	0.04	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.36	49	0.00	78	0.04	79	0.04	61	0.05	75	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		79	0.36	65	0.00	77	0.04	70	0.04	68	0.04	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.33	81	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	67	0.04	85	0.03
Rossi 2007		62	0.44	10	0.00	75	0.04	66	0.04	64	0.04	62	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		63	0.44	35	0.00	66	0.05	60	0.05	84	0.03	64	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		83	0.32	63	0.00	68	0.04	78	0.04	85	0.03	87	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		38	0.51	56	0.00	54	0.05	61	0.05	78	0.04	70	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		28	0.56	42	0.00	29	0.09	29	0.41	48	0.07	26	0.17
Shebanova 2002		17	0.59	57	0.00	13	0.12	9	0.55	50	0.06	23	0.18
Smith 1975		33	0.55	15	0.00	34	0.12	31	0.38	58	0.05	32	0.14
Sokolov 2002		74	0.38	89	0.00	67	0.05	65	0.05	79	0.03	61	0.04
Sztompka 1959		23	0.58	38	0.00	24	0.13	25	0.45	70	0.04	36	0.13
Tomsic 1995		88	0.25	72	0.00	88	0.04	72	0.04	81	0.03	80	0.03
Uninsky 1932		47	0.50	90	0.00	37	0.08	35	0.30	50	0.06	37	0.13
Uninsky 1971		37	0.52	73	0.00	17	0.13	21	0.48	44	0.16	17	0.28
Wasowski 1980		19	0.59	36	0.00	18	0.12	15	0.52	39	0.22	12	0.34
Zak 1937		9	0.62	24	0.00	8	0.26	8	0.62	26	0.39	8	0.49
Zak 1951		10	0.62	7	0.01	7	0.30	5	0.65	23	0.41	5	0.52
Average		3	0.72	12	0.00	3	0.35	3	0.74	57	0.05	22	0.19
Random 1		91	-0.16	47	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	43	0.11	54	0.05
Random 2		89	-0.09	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	77	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.12	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	80	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).