Groot 1988

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	0.56	6	0.02	17	0.11	17	0.38	54	0.05	39	0.14
Anderszewski 2003		26	0.52	33	0.00	34	0.05	33	0.18	43	0.20	30	0.19
Ashkenazy 1981		46	0.49	45	0.00	56	0.06	53	0.06	56	0.06	66	0.06
Bacha 2000		29	0.52	62	0.00	51	0.05	57	0.05	21	0.35	41	0.13
Badura 1965		65	0.43	19	0.00	75	0.04	82	0.04	51	0.06	73	0.05
Barbosa 1983		30	0.51	65	0.00	27	0.09	27	0.26	27	0.43	21	0.33
Biret 1990		3	0.60	37	0.00	6	0.12	5	0.49	21	0.40	9	0.44
Blet 2003		47	0.49	16	0.01	52	0.06	48	0.06	20	0.34	38	0.14
Block 1995		18	0.54	11	0.01	7	0.10	13	0.43	14	0.49	8	0.46
Blumental 1952		17	0.54	27	0.00	21	0.07	24	0.31	45	0.09	33	0.17
Boshniakovich 1969		38	0.51	55	0.00	49	0.06	51	0.06	70	0.04	74	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		6	0.59	4	0.03	13	0.10	14	0.43	10	0.66	2	0.53
Bunin 1987		63	0.44	53	0.00	72	0.06	50	0.06	30	0.32	40	0.14
Bunin 1987b		64	0.43	42	0.00	71	0.06	47	0.06	31	0.33	37	0.14
Chiu 1999		41	0.50	44	0.00	28	0.10	26	0.27	10	0.40	20	0.33
Cohen 1997		82	0.38	35	0.00	67	0.04	66	0.04	21	0.30	46	0.11
Cortot 1951		66	0.43	54	0.00	73	0.05	62	0.05	32	0.31	43	0.12
Csalog 1996		50	0.48	78	0.00	31	0.05	44	0.09	27	0.30	34	0.16
Czerny 1949		67	0.43	58	0.00	59	0.04	74	0.04	63	0.05	87	0.04
Czerny 1990		36	0.51	43	0.00	29	0.07	28	0.25	45	0.13	31	0.18
Duchoud 2007		72	0.42	82	0.00	68	0.04	69	0.04	24	0.29	45	0.11
Ezaki 2006		23	0.53	73	0.00	38	0.04	39	0.12	67	0.04	64	0.07
Falvay 1989		16	0.54	15	0.01	23	0.06	23	0.31	19	0.47	14	0.38
Farrell 1958		9	0.57	50	0.00	12	0.12	11	0.47	21	0.45	5	0.46
Ferenczy 1958		56	0.46	7	0.01	46	0.05	60	0.05	42	0.16	54	0.09
Fliere 1977		4	0.60	36	0.00	4	0.14	3	0.59	37	0.20	18	0.34
Fou 1978		14	0.56	8	0.01	16	0.11	19	0.35	36	0.19	25	0.26
Francois 1956		35	0.51	48	0.00	35	0.05	34	0.18	18	0.49	23	0.30
Friedman 1923		75	0.39	72	0.00	76	0.04	76	0.04	48	0.06	77	0.05
Friedman 1923b		79	0.39	79	0.00	77	0.04	73	0.04	48	0.06	75	0.05
Friedman 1930		70	0.42	51	0.00	74	0.05	58	0.05	57	0.05	72	0.05
Garcia 2007		69	0.42	49	0.00	69	0.05	55	0.05	41	0.19	51	0.10
Garcia 2007b		52	0.48	56	0.00	33	0.05	38	0.13	33	0.26	32	0.18
Gierzod 1998		42	0.50	77	0.00	41	0.05	42	0.11	57	0.05	65	0.07
Gornostaeva 1994		62	0.44	57	0.00	58	0.07	46	0.07	33	0.21	42	0.12
Groot 1988		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Harasiewicz 1955		43	0.50	83	0.00	48	0.06	54	0.06	58	0.05	76	0.05
Hatto 1993		40	0.51	84	0.00	42	0.04	35	0.15	55	0.05	56	0.09
Hatto 1997		32	0.51	85	0.00	36	0.05	32	0.20	45	0.11	36	0.15
Horowitz 1949		27	0.52	21	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.09	26	0.45	28	0.20
Indjic 1988		39	0.51	63	0.00	43	0.06	37	0.15	51	0.06	53	0.09
Kapell 1951		37	0.51	28	0.00	39	0.05	36	0.15	48	0.07	49	0.10
Kissin 1993		57	0.45	76	0.00	62	0.05	56	0.05	76	0.04	83	0.04
Kushner 1989		20	0.53	75	0.00	26	0.08	22	0.32	41	0.13	27	0.20
Luisada 1991		28	0.52	60	0.00	44	0.04	43	0.10	55	0.06	58	0.08
Lushtak 2004		13	0.56	41	0.00	11	0.10	9	0.47	19	0.45	7	0.46
Malcuzynski 1961		68	0.43	24	0.00	70	0.04	67	0.04	55	0.05	79	0.04
Magaloff 1978		21	0.53	12	0.01	15	0.11	18	0.37	13	0.43	11	0.40
Magin 1975		34	0.51	61	0.00	19	0.11	20	0.34	37	0.23	24	0.28
Michalowski 1933		87	0.31	26	0.00	87	0.04	81	0.04	62	0.04	82	0.04
Milkina 1970		5	0.59	23	0.00	8	0.09	8	0.48	33	0.33	12	0.40
Mohovich 1999		2	0.64	2	0.18	2	0.37	2	0.61	6	0.66	1	0.63
Moravec 1969		74	0.40	46	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	55	0.05	78	0.04
Morozova 2008		49	0.48	13	0.01	47	0.04	64	0.04	49	0.06	71	0.05
Neighaus 1950		44	0.50	31	0.00	53	0.05	59	0.05	43	0.12	63	0.08
Niedzielski 1931		71	0.42	20	0.00	64	0.05	61	0.05	59	0.05	69	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		54	0.47	25	0.00	37	0.05	41	0.12	38	0.19	35	0.15
Osinska 1989		11	0.56	22	0.00	9	0.09	10	0.47	35	0.24	19	0.34
Pachmann 1927		88	0.31	89	0.00	88	0.04	80	0.04	63	0.04	81	0.04
Paderewski 1930		84	0.37	66	0.00	79	0.03	87	0.03	77	0.03	89	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		45	0.49	34	0.00	57	0.06	49	0.06	40	0.17	47	0.10
Pierdomenico 2008		61	0.45	80	0.00	22	0.08	29	0.25	11	0.49	15	0.35
Poblocka 1999		53	0.47	68	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.12	50	0.06	59	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		55	0.46	67	0.00	54	0.05	63	0.05	42	0.12	60	0.08
Rachmaninoff 1923		8	0.57	5	0.03	3	0.12	12	0.46	17	0.39	10	0.42
Rangell 2001		83	0.38	64	0.00	63	0.04	71	0.04	43	0.18	62	0.08
Richter 1976		73	0.41	29	0.00	66	0.04	72	0.04	58	0.05	80	0.04
Rosen 1989		24	0.53	14	0.01	18	0.10	15	0.39	28	0.31	17	0.35
Rosenthal 1930		76	0.39	39	0.00	78	0.04	68	0.04	35	0.25	52	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.37	69	0.00	83	0.04	84	0.04	36	0.23	50	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.39	86	0.00	81	0.03	88	0.03	29	0.28	57	0.09
Rosenthal 1931c		86	0.35	71	0.00	86	0.04	75	0.04	45	0.10	67	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.39	38	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	32	0.30	55	0.09
Rossi 2007		80	0.39	87	0.00	80	0.04	83	0.04	51	0.06	68	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		48	0.48	59	0.00	55	0.04	65	0.04	37	0.24	48	0.10
Rubinstein 1952		15	0.55	3	0.05	14	0.12	7	0.48	15	0.49	4	0.48
Rubinstein 1966		7	0.59	10	0.01	5	0.16	4	0.54	15	0.52	3	0.53
Schilhawsky 1960		58	0.45	52	0.00	60	0.04	77	0.04	67	0.04	85	0.04
Shebanova 2002		10	0.57	47	0.00	10	0.11	6	0.48	27	0.32	13	0.39
Smith 1975		22	0.53	17	0.01	25	0.07	25	0.30	20	0.34	22	0.32
Sokolov 2002		59	0.45	32	0.00	65	0.04	70	0.04	74	0.03	88	0.03
Sztompka 1959		51	0.48	40	0.00	50	0.06	52	0.06	67	0.05	70	0.05
Tomsic 1995		19	0.54	18	0.00	30	0.07	30	0.23	16	0.52	16	0.35
Uninsky 1932		78	0.39	70	0.00	85	0.04	79	0.04	74	0.04	86	0.04
Uninsky 1971		60	0.45	74	0.00	61	0.04	78	0.04	61	0.05	84	0.04
Wasowski 1980		33	0.51	9	0.01	32	0.05	31	0.21	42	0.18	29	0.19
Zak 1937		31	0.51	88	0.00	24	0.07	21	0.33	69	0.04	44	0.11
Zak 1951		25	0.53	30	0.00	20	0.10	16	0.38	41	0.13	26	0.22
Average		1	0.68	1	0.52	1	0.51	1	0.78	36	0.27	6	0.46
Random 1		91	-0.14	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	78	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.10	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.02	90	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.01	81	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	13	0.34	61	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).