Rosenthal 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		39	0.55	12	0.01	38	0.06	37	0.19	57	0.04	37	0.09
Anderszewski 2003		35	0.56	21	0.00	46	0.04	51	0.04	46	0.04	59	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		28	0.58	31	0.00	32	0.05	29	0.26	63	0.03	39	0.09
Bacha 2000		79	0.31	66	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	86	0.02	91	0.01
Badura 1965		38	0.55	15	0.01	6	0.13	18	0.43	16	0.41	6	0.42
Barbosa 1983		75	0.37	59	0.00	60	0.03	72	0.03	69	0.03	72	0.03
Biret 1990		34	0.56	24	0.00	48	0.04	52	0.04	70	0.03	82	0.03
Blet 2003		52	0.51	84	0.00	59	0.04	55	0.04	77	0.03	73	0.03
Block 1995		66	0.45	48	0.00	62	0.04	61	0.04	51	0.04	61	0.04
Blumental 1952		77	0.33	16	0.01	74	0.04	59	0.04	68	0.03	78	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		58	0.48	85	0.00	72	0.04	54	0.04	57	0.04	62	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		59	0.48	45	0.00	65	0.03	68	0.03	51	0.05	52	0.04
Bunin 1987		19	0.63	33	0.00	11	0.09	13	0.46	29	0.30	11	0.37
Bunin 1987b		20	0.63	47	0.00	12	0.12	14	0.46	29	0.30	9	0.37
Chiu 1999		86	0.22	39	0.00	82	0.03	70	0.03	83	0.03	66	0.03
Cohen 1997		81	0.28	40	0.00	80	0.03	79	0.03	64	0.03	80	0.03
Cortot 1951		21	0.63	43	0.00	28	0.09	24	0.37	32	0.25	15	0.30
Csalog 1996		78	0.33	80	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	81	0.03	87	0.02
Czerny 1949		12	0.66	8	0.02	15	0.11	4	0.56	32	0.24	10	0.37
Czerny 1990		13	0.66	42	0.00	23	0.07	21	0.40	76	0.03	35	0.11
Duchoud 2007		24	0.60	71	0.00	40	0.06	39	0.17	49	0.05	38	0.09
Ezaki 2006		16	0.65	60	0.00	19	0.07	15	0.45	47	0.06	24	0.16
Falvay 1989		46	0.52	30	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.10	82	0.03	46	0.05
Farrell 1958		40	0.55	55	0.00	52	0.05	48	0.05	66	0.04	54	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		49	0.52	32	0.00	66	0.03	78	0.03	45	0.08	49	0.05
Fliere 1977		9	0.68	61	0.00	24	0.10	23	0.38	61	0.04	31	0.12
Fou 1978		68	0.42	41	0.00	58	0.03	73	0.03	52	0.06	55	0.04
Francois 1956		15	0.65	89	0.00	20	0.07	25	0.36	42	0.10	23	0.19
Friedman 1923		84	0.26	44	0.00	42	0.09	40	0.16	20	0.39	19	0.25
Friedman 1923b		83	0.26	75	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.15	21	0.35	20	0.23
Friedman 1930		51	0.51	3	0.05	7	0.14	8	0.54	6	0.48	4	0.51
Garcia 2007		80	0.31	72	0.00	67	0.03	71	0.03	74	0.03	76	0.03
Garcia 2007b		88	0.08	81	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	69	0.03	90	0.02
Gierzod 1998		14	0.66	35	0.00	27	0.08	28	0.28	51	0.04	34	0.11
Gornostaeva 1994		8	0.69	6	0.02	14	0.11	11	0.48	28	0.23	13	0.33
Groot 1988		17	0.64	2	0.14	2	0.14	12	0.48	30	0.23	14	0.33
Harasiewicz 1955		65	0.46	5	0.03	10	0.10	19	0.42	35	0.16	18	0.26
Hatto 1993		74	0.37	63	0.00	68	0.03	80	0.03	53	0.04	83	0.03
Hatto 1997		69	0.42	28	0.00	61	0.03	65	0.03	55	0.03	74	0.03
Horowitz 1949		32	0.56	13	0.01	37	0.06	31	0.25	33	0.18	21	0.21
Indjic 1988		72	0.38	64	0.00	69	0.03	75	0.03	52	0.04	71	0.03
Kapell 1951		25	0.59	86	0.00	51	0.04	56	0.04	59	0.04	56	0.04
Kissin 1993		53	0.50	58	0.00	53	0.04	63	0.04	57	0.04	58	0.04
Kushner 1989		6	0.70	37	0.00	18	0.08	17	0.43	38	0.19	16	0.29
Luisada 1991		71	0.39	52	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.02	84	0.02
Lushtak 2004		63	0.46	90	0.00	29	0.06	33	0.24	55	0.04	36	0.10
Malcuzynski 1961		5	0.71	53	0.00	13	0.10	6	0.54	36	0.16	17	0.29
Magaloff 1978		7	0.70	9	0.01	9	0.13	10	0.50	34	0.23	12	0.34
Magin 1975		56	0.49	22	0.00	63	0.03	67	0.03	74	0.03	68	0.03
Michalowski 1933		76	0.35	76	0.00	31	0.05	45	0.09	58	0.05	43	0.07
Milkina 1970		47	0.52	82	0.00	71	0.03	74	0.03	74	0.03	70	0.03
Mohovich 1999		29	0.57	70	0.00	35	0.05	36	0.20	69	0.03	41	0.08
Moravec 1969		30	0.56	19	0.00	57	0.06	46	0.06	61	0.04	45	0.05
Morozova 2008		43	0.53	17	0.01	22	0.07	22	0.38	68	0.04	32	0.12
Neighaus 1950		33	0.56	78	0.00	33	0.05	32	0.25	74	0.03	40	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		62	0.46	20	0.00	75	0.03	69	0.03	52	0.04	67	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		41	0.54	51	0.00	49	0.05	47	0.05	75	0.03	57	0.04
Osinska 1989		26	0.58	56	0.00	50	0.04	57	0.04	72	0.04	51	0.04
Pachmann 1927		87	0.22	91	0.00	83	0.02	83	0.02	70	0.03	86	0.02
Paderewski 1930		37	0.55	26	0.00	56	0.05	49	0.05	44	0.08	44	0.06
Perlemuter 1992		48	0.52	29	0.00	25	0.08	27	0.33	60	0.04	33	0.11
Pierdomenico 2008		42	0.54	27	0.00	43	0.05	42	0.14	55	0.04	42	0.07
Poblocka 1999		36	0.55	77	0.00	70	0.03	76	0.03	82	0.03	64	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		50	0.52	36	0.00	54	0.04	60	0.04	59	0.04	53	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		23	0.60	7	0.02	8	0.13	9	0.51	19	0.32	8	0.40
Rangell 2001		64	0.46	49	0.00	77	0.04	64	0.04	80	0.02	81	0.03
Richter 1976		44	0.53	57	0.00	30	0.07	34	0.22	38	0.11	25	0.16
Rosen 1989		45	0.52	74	0.00	55	0.05	50	0.05	83	0.02	77	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931		4	0.71	4	0.04	3	0.11	2	0.62	4	0.63	2	0.62
Rosenthal 1931b		10	0.67	11	0.01	16	0.12	5	0.55	5	0.58	3	0.56
Rosenthal 1931c		1	0.86	1	0.51	1	0.51	1	0.74	4	0.72	1	0.73
Rosenthal 1931d		11	0.67	10	0.01	21	0.07	20	0.41	9	0.44	7	0.42
Rossi 2007		85	0.24	46	0.00	73	0.04	58	0.04	56	0.03	65	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		82	0.27	38	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	61	0.04	85	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		73	0.37	54	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	69	0.03	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1966		57	0.49	34	0.00	78	0.04	62	0.04	66	0.04	60	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		22	0.61	65	0.00	26	0.08	26	0.33	47	0.07	26	0.15
Shebanova 2002		70	0.41	79	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.03	75	0.03
Smith 1975		18	0.64	18	0.00	17	0.08	16	0.44	60	0.04	29	0.13
Sokolov 2002		3	0.74	73	0.00	5	0.16	7	0.54	22	0.37	5	0.45
Sztompka 1959		31	0.56	14	0.01	39	0.06	30	0.26	38	0.16	22	0.20
Tomsic 1995		54	0.50	87	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.09	81	0.03	48	0.05
Uninsky 1932		55	0.49	88	0.00	36	0.05	38	0.18	43	0.12	28	0.15
Uninsky 1971		27	0.58	23	0.00	34	0.05	35	0.21	46	0.08	30	0.13
Wasowski 1980		67	0.43	50	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	78	0.03	63	0.03
Zak 1937		61	0.47	68	0.00	64	0.03	66	0.03	70	0.04	69	0.03
Zak 1951		60	0.47	83	0.00	47	0.04	53	0.04	47	0.06	47	0.05
Average		2	0.74	25	0.00	4	0.11	3	0.57	55	0.04	27	0.15
Random 1		91	-0.06	69	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	69	0.03	88	0.02
Random 2		90	0.02	62	0.00	88	0.01	87	0.01	19	0.30	50	0.05
Random 3		89	0.06	67	0.00	87	0.01	88	0.01	41	0.12	79	0.03

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).