the data are convincing.
You have just fallen into the trap that was set up for you, because although the data are convincing, they do NOT describe, illustrate, or prove what they were set out to describe, illustrate, or prove (see Reply # 29). The research paper should be either retracted, rewritten, and/or renamed.
Allow me to make this clear first: Science itself is supposed to DESCRIBE and ILLUSTRATE only. It never proves anything. Whenever someone tells you that "science has just proven X", you face charlatans and manipulators whose goal it is to:
1) (gently) destroy any (moral, cultural, spiritual or other) values you had;
2) (gently) make you think the way they want you to think (critical reasoning and life experience are dismissed by default as arguments, and if you cannot cite a "scientific" source against the theory (often IMPOSSIBLE to do), you are disqualified as a partner in conversation);
3) (gently) force you either into submission or into some kind of self-destruction.
The data have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how judges pick winners, and theatrics in competitions will work AGAINST you if you don't meet the listeners' expectations, even in the finales. Besides, in a hall, competition judges sit TOO FAR AWAY to be able to pick up the kind of visual cues you get when watching a video clip. If the competition were broadcast from the place where the jury members usually sit, it would be a VERY DISAPPOINTING program for the spectators at home, in ALL respects.
P.S.: If in doubt, go to the first available piano competition and get a seat right behind the jury. Come back to report your impressions here; your impressions about what the jury members do during the performance, and your impressions of what you were able to catch from the contestants in terms of visible cues. Members of the Data Dictatorship and Manipulation Cult are, of course, recommended to block audio signals from reaching their ears, so that nothing can disturb the validity and reliability of the experiment.
This "research" is simply BS in both meanings: Bull Sh*t and Bad Science.
The literal consequence of giving in to the suggestion this "research" seeks to create is that we admit that we like classical piano music for the wrong reasons (mere snobbism and such), and that if we don't want to look like idiots, we'd better watch the wave length meter in our player than listen to the beautiful music recorded on the disc or file we play.
All piano students at Juilliard and other renowned high-level musical institutions (where people are taught HOW TO LISTEN, but obviously in vain) are also strongly advised to get their money back and go to some kind of theater school, because only there, they teach you how to win a competition. If that isn't an unrealistic and unfair strike below the belt of any self-respecting classical musician (both contestants and jury members), then I don't know.