Rosenthal 1931b

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		72	0.29	45	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	85	0.02	86	0.02
Anderszewski 2003		20	0.52	61	0.00	10	0.10	27	0.24	39	0.13	20	0.18
Ashkenazy 1981		41	0.45	62	0.00	22	0.06	43	0.10	85	0.02	62	0.04
Bacha 2000		44	0.43	63	0.00	66	0.04	61	0.04	58	0.04	52	0.04
Badura 1965		76	0.26	64	0.00	62	0.04	58	0.04	74	0.03	71	0.03
Barbosa 1983		78	0.21	19	0.00	81	0.03	75	0.03	89	0.01	81	0.02
Biret 1990		47	0.41	46	0.00	57	0.04	63	0.04	86	0.02	73	0.03
Blet 2003		62	0.34	47	0.00	78	0.03	74	0.03	88	0.02	82	0.02
Block 1995		15	0.56	18	0.00	20	0.06	21	0.32	26	0.26	11	0.29
Blumental 1952		83	0.18	31	0.00	74	0.03	73	0.03	85	0.02	88	0.02
Boshniakovich 1969		35	0.47	48	0.00	24	0.06	20	0.36	34	0.19	16	0.26
Brailowsky 1960		6	0.64	65	0.00	5	0.23	7	0.50	7	0.46	6	0.48
Bunin 1987		29	0.49	66	0.00	43	0.05	35	0.16	45	0.09	31	0.12
Bunin 1987b		30	0.49	67	0.00	42	0.05	33	0.17	45	0.09	27	0.12
Chiu 1999		66	0.33	49	0.00	50	0.05	49	0.05	56	0.04	56	0.04
Cohen 1997		52	0.38	13	0.00	53	0.05	56	0.05	25	0.28	30	0.12
Cortot 1951		75	0.27	50	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	86	0.02	90	0.02
Csalog 1996		79	0.21	20	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01
Czerny 1949		71	0.30	32	0.00	72	0.03	69	0.03	71	0.03	70	0.03
Czerny 1990		61	0.34	28	0.00	71	0.03	71	0.03	82	0.03	72	0.03
Duchoud 2007		54	0.38	51	0.00	68	0.03	70	0.03	83	0.02	87	0.02
Ezaki 2006		34	0.47	12	0.00	45	0.05	42	0.10	85	0.02	51	0.04
Falvay 1989		22	0.51	37	0.00	17	0.06	29	0.22	48	0.05	34	0.10
Farrell 1958		21	0.51	52	0.00	48	0.08	45	0.08	33	0.14	32	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		77	0.24	16	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	78	0.03	83	0.02
Fliere 1977		9	0.59	68	0.00	19	0.08	14	0.41	55	0.05	24	0.14
Fou 1978		12	0.57	17	0.00	15	0.12	8	0.46	34	0.31	7	0.38
Francois 1956		48	0.40	23	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.09	68	0.04	47	0.06
Friedman 1923		87	0.14	69	0.00	59	0.03	68	0.03	59	0.05	63	0.04
Friedman 1923b		86	0.16	70	0.00	60	0.04	59	0.04	48	0.06	50	0.05
Friedman 1930		73	0.27	21	0.00	56	0.05	53	0.05	54	0.05	49	0.05
Garcia 2007		51	0.39	38	0.00	52	0.05	48	0.05	38	0.18	40	0.09
Garcia 2007b		74	0.27	39	0.00	35	0.05	41	0.11	9	0.35	19	0.20
Gierzod 1998		23	0.51	14	0.00	16	0.07	39	0.13	72	0.03	46	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		10	0.59	10	0.00	8	0.11	13	0.42	26	0.26	9	0.33
Groot 1988		13	0.56	33	0.00	7	0.12	10	0.43	34	0.17	14	0.27
Harasiewicz 1955		27	0.49	24	0.00	9	0.10	9	0.44	32	0.19	12	0.29
Hatto 1993		59	0.35	25	0.00	63	0.04	62	0.04	71	0.03	74	0.03
Hatto 1997		60	0.34	71	0.00	58	0.04	66	0.04	83	0.02	69	0.03
Horowitz 1949		17	0.55	53	0.00	13	0.09	12	0.42	21	0.31	8	0.36
Indjic 1988		65	0.33	72	0.00	64	0.05	57	0.05	75	0.03	58	0.04
Kapell 1951		67	0.33	73	0.00	80	0.03	76	0.03	87	0.02	79	0.02
Kissin 1993		33	0.48	5	0.00	21	0.07	23	0.29	54	0.05	28	0.12
Kushner 1989		11	0.58	54	0.00	26	0.08	22	0.32	70	0.03	35	0.10
Luisada 1991		36	0.47	55	0.00	49	0.05	52	0.05	70	0.03	53	0.04
Lushtak 2004		63	0.34	74	0.00	55	0.05	51	0.05	69	0.03	60	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		8	0.60	56	0.00	18	0.08	15	0.40	46	0.07	22	0.17
Magaloff 1978		4	0.70	75	0.00	4	0.40	4	0.67	13	0.42	5	0.53
Magin 1975		14	0.56	76	0.00	25	0.07	17	0.38	32	0.21	13	0.28
Michalowski 1933		88	0.09	77	0.00	73	0.03	72	0.03	83	0.03	67	0.03
Milkina 1970		16	0.55	57	0.00	14	0.09	16	0.40	35	0.21	10	0.29
Mohovich 1999		25	0.50	78	0.00	28	0.07	28	0.23	81	0.03	43	0.08
Moravec 1969		58	0.35	11	0.00	77	0.02	81	0.02	79	0.03	75	0.02
Morozova 2008		45	0.42	79	0.00	31	0.06	25	0.28	79	0.03	39	0.09
Neighaus 1950		24	0.50	80	0.00	30	0.08	26	0.26	65	0.04	36	0.10
Niedzielski 1931		68	0.33	81	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	47	0.05	57	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		53	0.38	82	0.00	67	0.04	60	0.04	81	0.03	66	0.03
Osinska 1989		57	0.35	83	0.00	69	0.04	64	0.04	79	0.03	64	0.03
Pachmann 1927		50	0.39	84	0.00	33	0.07	30	0.21	33	0.23	18	0.22
Paderewski 1930		55	0.37	26	0.00	70	0.03	77	0.03	58	0.03	65	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		42	0.43	85	0.00	38	0.06	31	0.18	47	0.05	37	0.09
Pierdomenico 2008		28	0.49	86	0.00	27	0.10	19	0.37	37	0.15	17	0.24
Poblocka 1999		64	0.34	87	0.00	82	0.02	83	0.02	83	0.03	77	0.02
Rabcewiczowa 1932		80	0.20	9	0.00	83	0.02	82	0.02	89	0.02	78	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		39	0.46	27	0.00	29	0.06	24	0.28	43	0.10	21	0.17
Rangell 2001		18	0.53	34	0.00	23	0.06	18	0.37	58	0.05	25	0.14
Richter 1976		37	0.47	40	0.00	37	0.04	34	0.17	55	0.04	42	0.08
Rosen 1989		26	0.50	41	0.00	47	0.05	54	0.05	75	0.03	61	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		5	0.67	7	0.00	6	0.11	5	0.58	5	0.55	4	0.56
Rosenthal 1931		1	0.97	1	0.55	1	0.54	1	0.97	1	0.98	1	0.97
Rosenthal 1931b		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931c		3	0.79	3	0.01	3	0.47	3	0.78	1	0.80	3	0.79
Rosenthal 1931d		2	0.96	2	0.43	2	0.93	2	0.97	1	0.96	2	0.96
Rossi 2007		85	0.17	88	0.00	36	0.04	46	0.08	77	0.02	55	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		56	0.37	22	0.00	34	0.05	37	0.14	9	0.48	15	0.26
Rubinstein 1952		49	0.40	42	0.00	41	0.06	36	0.15	34	0.18	23	0.16
Rubinstein 1966		46	0.41	58	0.00	54	0.05	55	0.05	49	0.05	48	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		31	0.48	89	0.00	46	0.05	50	0.05	67	0.04	59	0.04
Shebanova 2002		69	0.32	29	0.00	76	0.02	80	0.02	79	0.03	85	0.02
Smith 1975		19	0.53	4	0.00	12	0.11	11	0.42	62	0.04	26	0.13
Sokolov 2002		38	0.46	35	0.00	51	0.05	47	0.05	77	0.03	54	0.04
Sztompka 1959		82	0.18	30	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	82	0.02	80	0.02
Tomsic 1995		43	0.43	43	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.11	53	0.04	44	0.07
Uninsky 1932		84	0.17	15	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	81	0.03	84	0.02
Uninsky 1971		70	0.31	6	0.00	75	0.03	78	0.03	69	0.03	68	0.03
Wasowski 1980		81	0.20	59	0.00	88	0.01	89	0.01	80	0.03	76	0.02
Zak 1937		40	0.46	60	0.00	39	0.05	38	0.14	58	0.05	41	0.08
Zak 1951		32	0.48	44	0.00	32	0.05	32	0.18	58	0.05	38	0.09
Average		7	0.60	8	0.00	11	0.09	6	0.51	74	0.03	29	0.12
Random 1		89	0.06	90	0.00	61	0.03	67	0.03	8	0.43	33	0.11
Random 2		91	-0.02	91	0.00	89	0.01	88	0.01	16	0.32	45	0.06
Random 3		90	0.02	36	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	68	0.03	89	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).