Garcia 2007

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		15	0.55	69	0.00	31	0.09	27	0.41	47	0.07	20	0.17
Anderszewski 2003		30	0.52	14	0.00	33	0.07	31	0.36	69	0.04	36	0.12
Ashkenazy 1981		52	0.47	53	0.00	56	0.04	68	0.04	67	0.04	68	0.04
Bacha 2000		70	0.42	29	0.00	73	0.05	59	0.05	70	0.04	59	0.04
Badura 1965		74	0.41	54	0.00	70	0.03	86	0.03	68	0.04	84	0.03
Barbosa 1983		83	0.36	77	0.00	65	0.04	79	0.04	69	0.04	64	0.04
Biret 1990		16	0.54	40	0.00	19	0.12	13	0.51	54	0.05	26	0.16
Blet 2003		47	0.48	61	0.00	51	0.04	65	0.04	46	0.08	49	0.06
Block 1995		71	0.41	47	0.00	43	0.08	42	0.19	64	0.04	43	0.09
Blumental 1952		27	0.52	55	0.00	36	0.09	36	0.27	83	0.03	44	0.09
Boshniakovich 1969		21	0.54	4	0.01	11	0.11	26	0.41	59	0.05	30	0.14
Brailowsky 1960		87	0.32	57	0.00	88	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.03	75	0.03
Bunin 1987		79	0.38	71	0.00	75	0.04	75	0.04	76	0.03	85	0.03
Bunin 1987b		80	0.38	58	0.00	74	0.04	74	0.04	77	0.03	80	0.03
Chiu 1999		54	0.46	63	0.00	58	0.04	66	0.04	80	0.03	76	0.03
Cohen 1997		77	0.39	36	0.00	71	0.04	70	0.04	52	0.05	69	0.04
Cortot 1951		44	0.49	85	0.00	39	0.06	43	0.14	26	0.41	12	0.24
Csalog 1996		64	0.43	17	0.00	48	0.07	46	0.07	47	0.06	48	0.06
Czerny 1949		20	0.54	18	0.00	32	0.10	24	0.41	58	0.05	29	0.14
Czerny 1990		42	0.49	80	0.00	53	0.05	53	0.05	78	0.04	71	0.04
Duchoud 2007		50	0.48	37	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.13	21	0.32	15	0.20
Ezaki 2006		45	0.49	83	0.00	55	0.04	63	0.04	80	0.03	72	0.03
Falvay 1989		65	0.43	27	0.00	66	0.04	72	0.04	70	0.05	62	0.04
Farrell 1958		10	0.57	5	0.01	6	0.13	6	0.59	18	0.46	5	0.52
Ferenczy 1958		67	0.42	72	0.00	68	0.03	85	0.03	75	0.03	83	0.03
Fliere 1977		4	0.61	19	0.00	5	0.23	3	0.61	56	0.05	18	0.17
Fou 1978		11	0.57	12	0.00	18	0.13	16	0.50	61	0.05	23	0.16
Francois 1956		57	0.46	62	0.00	52	0.05	55	0.05	52	0.05	58	0.05
Friedman 1923		69	0.42	48	0.00	80	0.04	62	0.04	81	0.03	89	0.03
Friedman 1923b		72	0.41	45	0.00	81	0.05	60	0.05	77	0.04	70	0.04
Friedman 1930		58	0.46	21	0.00	77	0.04	71	0.04	74	0.04	65	0.04
Garcia 2007		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Garcia 2007b		1	0.81	1	0.88	1	0.87	1	0.93	1	0.88	1	0.90
Gierzod 1998		5	0.58	25	0.00	15	0.08	10	0.53	58	0.05	24	0.16
Gornostaeva 1994		22	0.53	28	0.00	26	0.06	32	0.31	84	0.03	41	0.10
Groot 1988		66	0.42	35	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.19	55	0.05	42	0.10
Harasiewicz 1955		19	0.54	22	0.00	12	0.08	28	0.40	83	0.03	40	0.11
Hatto 1993		31	0.52	73	0.00	24	0.07	29	0.39	68	0.04	38	0.12
Hatto 1997		24	0.53	84	0.00	14	0.08	22	0.45	49	0.07	17	0.18
Horowitz 1949		63	0.43	50	0.00	78	0.05	51	0.05	60	0.06	51	0.05
Indjic 1988		28	0.52	78	0.00	22	0.11	23	0.41	56	0.05	28	0.14
Kapell 1951		9	0.57	11	0.00	4	0.20	4	0.60	31	0.24	7	0.38
Kissin 1993		34	0.51	86	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	73	0.04	54	0.05
Kushner 1989		13	0.56	41	0.00	10	0.11	9	0.53	46	0.10	13	0.23
Luisada 1991		55	0.46	87	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	79	0.03	74	0.03
Lushtak 2004		39	0.50	59	0.00	47	0.06	48	0.06	60	0.05	55	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		33	0.51	16	0.00	27	0.07	20	0.45	38	0.13	11	0.24
Magaloff 1978		75	0.41	67	0.00	79	0.05	56	0.05	79	0.03	61	0.04
Magin 1975		6	0.58	26	0.00	16	0.10	8	0.55	76	0.03	31	0.13
Michalowski 1933		78	0.39	20	0.00	72	0.05	57	0.05	56	0.05	53	0.05
Milkina 1970		32	0.51	30	0.00	41	0.10	35	0.27	69	0.05	34	0.12
Mohovich 1999		35	0.51	56	0.00	23	0.06	30	0.37	49	0.08	21	0.17
Moravec 1969		59	0.45	70	0.00	76	0.04	80	0.04	71	0.03	73	0.03
Morozova 2008		25	0.53	60	0.00	35	0.07	33	0.30	53	0.05	37	0.12
Neighaus 1950		51	0.48	81	0.00	62	0.06	49	0.06	47	0.06	50	0.06
Niedzielski 1931		43	0.49	3	0.01	38	0.07	39	0.22	46	0.07	33	0.12
Ohlsson 1999		23	0.53	79	0.00	13	0.09	11	0.52	66	0.04	27	0.14
Osinska 1989		7	0.58	24	0.00	7	0.14	7	0.58	43	0.14	10	0.28
Pachmann 1927		81	0.38	34	0.00	82	0.04	76	0.04	68	0.03	81	0.03
Paderewski 1930		37	0.50	7	0.00	34	0.07	37	0.27	10	0.53	8	0.38
Perlemuter 1992		12	0.57	43	0.00	9	0.13	12	0.52	12	0.52	3	0.52
Pierdomenico 2008		36	0.51	2	0.01	8	0.13	15	0.50	5	0.59	2	0.54
Poblocka 1999		41	0.49	74	0.00	40	0.08	40	0.21	80	0.03	45	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		14	0.56	49	0.00	21	0.09	14	0.51	53	0.05	22	0.16
Rachmaninoff 1923		38	0.50	6	0.01	28	0.07	34	0.30	74	0.04	39	0.11
Rangell 2001		73	0.41	44	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	46	0.07	56	0.05
Richter 1976		61	0.44	38	0.00	67	0.04	73	0.04	53	0.06	52	0.05
Rosen 1989		18	0.54	46	0.00	29	0.06	25	0.41	51	0.06	25	0.16
Rosenthal 1930		82	0.36	88	0.00	83	0.04	77	0.04	56	0.04	67	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		88	0.31	82	0.00	87	0.03	88	0.03	79	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.33	31	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	77	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		85	0.33	64	0.00	85	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.03	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.34	75	0.00	84	0.03	87	0.03	63	0.04	86	0.03
Rossi 2007		17	0.54	9	0.00	25	0.07	18	0.49	5	0.56	4	0.52
Rubinstein 1939		56	0.46	51	0.00	57	0.04	78	0.04	81	0.03	78	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		76	0.40	32	0.00	61	0.05	50	0.05	62	0.05	57	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		46	0.48	76	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.13	69	0.05	46	0.08
Schilhawsky 1960		29	0.52	8	0.00	30	0.07	21	0.45	46	0.10	14	0.21
Shebanova 2002		26	0.52	52	0.00	20	0.11	19	0.48	49	0.06	19	0.17
Smith 1975		68	0.42	10	0.00	69	0.03	84	0.03	77	0.03	77	0.03
Sokolov 2002		62	0.43	13	0.00	60	0.05	52	0.05	78	0.03	60	0.04
Sztompka 1959		3	0.61	23	0.00	3	0.17	5	0.60	35	0.36	6	0.46
Tomsic 1995		60	0.44	42	0.00	50	0.04	61	0.04	29	0.36	35	0.12
Uninsky 1932		48	0.48	89	0.00	49	0.05	54	0.05	77	0.04	66	0.04
Uninsky 1971		40	0.49	39	0.00	37	0.07	38	0.25	50	0.07	32	0.13
Wasowski 1980		8	0.57	90	0.00	17	0.11	17	0.49	40	0.20	9	0.31
Zak 1937		53	0.47	68	0.00	59	0.04	67	0.04	84	0.03	79	0.03
Zak 1951		49	0.48	65	0.00	54	0.05	58	0.05	84	0.04	63	0.04
Average		2	0.68	15	0.00	2	0.42	2	0.76	63	0.05	16	0.19
Random 1		91	-0.15	66	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	70	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.08	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	54	0.04	90	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.02	33	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	27	0.24	47	0.07

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).