Rosenthal 1931c

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		54	0.51	78	0.00	50	0.06	48	0.06	70	0.03	66	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		47	0.53	15	0.00	40	0.06	37	0.17	56	0.04	39	0.08
Ashkenazy 1981		20	0.61	75	0.00	36	0.05	25	0.28	48	0.05	31	0.12
Bacha 2000		71	0.40	10	0.01	88	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.02	87	0.02
Badura 1965		46	0.53	20	0.00	11	0.14	16	0.39	18	0.40	8	0.39
Barbosa 1983		80	0.30	88	0.00	80	0.02	84	0.02	78	0.02	90	0.02
Biret 1990		56	0.50	56	0.00	59	0.03	65	0.03	75	0.03	84	0.03
Blet 2003		52	0.51	89	0.00	56	0.05	52	0.05	73	0.03	63	0.04
Block 1995		43	0.54	82	0.00	44	0.04	45	0.09	44	0.11	35	0.10
Blumental 1952		75	0.34	19	0.00	67	0.03	64	0.03	67	0.03	82	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		35	0.57	60	0.00	28	0.07	36	0.18	45	0.10	30	0.13
Brailowsky 1960		59	0.50	38	0.00	63	0.03	67	0.03	72	0.04	70	0.03
Bunin 1987		23	0.59	61	0.00	23	0.08	23	0.31	38	0.16	18	0.22
Bunin 1987b		25	0.59	36	0.00	22	0.08	24	0.30	38	0.16	17	0.22
Chiu 1999		84	0.24	54	0.00	71	0.03	68	0.03	76	0.03	73	0.03
Cohen 1997		73	0.37	30	0.00	72	0.02	81	0.02	47	0.05	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		24	0.59	21	0.00	32	0.05	40	0.12	56	0.05	42	0.08
Csalog 1996		72	0.37	57	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	60	0.04	77	0.03
Czerny 1949		31	0.58	62	0.00	25	0.07	19	0.36	50	0.06	27	0.15
Czerny 1990		22	0.60	76	0.00	34	0.05	33	0.21	57	0.04	38	0.09
Duchoud 2007		40	0.56	47	0.00	57	0.04	58	0.04	60	0.04	67	0.04
Ezaki 2006		14	0.67	24	0.00	15	0.11	11	0.47	42	0.09	19	0.21
Falvay 1989		28	0.59	14	0.00	39	0.06	27	0.24	52	0.05	32	0.11
Farrell 1958		36	0.57	34	0.00	53	0.04	60	0.04	77	0.03	75	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		60	0.49	51	0.00	74	0.03	73	0.03	61	0.04	78	0.03
Fliere 1977		8	0.71	59	0.00	10	0.15	12	0.47	42	0.12	16	0.24
Fou 1978		42	0.55	66	0.00	37	0.05	29	0.22	41	0.18	20	0.20
Francois 1956		18	0.62	13	0.00	19	0.08	18	0.36	41	0.11	21	0.20
Friedman 1923		86	0.23	58	0.00	62	0.04	56	0.04	30	0.25	36	0.10
Friedman 1923b		85	0.24	69	0.00	61	0.03	63	0.03	30	0.23	41	0.08
Friedman 1930		67	0.43	40	0.00	29	0.06	30	0.22	27	0.32	12	0.27
Garcia 2007		83	0.29	72	0.00	75	0.03	74	0.03	66	0.04	81	0.03
Garcia 2007b		88	0.09	39	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	57	0.04	86	0.03
Gierzod 1998		12	0.67	8	0.02	18	0.08	22	0.33	45	0.09	25	0.17
Gornostaeva 1994		9	0.71	48	0.00	9	0.16	8	0.58	16	0.36	6	0.46
Groot 1988		13	0.67	32	0.00	12	0.12	10	0.48	35	0.17	11	0.29
Harasiewicz 1955		65	0.45	17	0.00	13	0.11	17	0.38	36	0.16	15	0.25
Hatto 1993		77	0.32	41	0.00	82	0.03	77	0.03	64	0.03	85	0.03
Hatto 1997		74	0.36	74	0.00	81	0.02	82	0.02	86	0.02	91	0.02
Horowitz 1949		37	0.56	42	0.00	31	0.05	35	0.18	38	0.13	26	0.15
Indjic 1988		76	0.33	83	0.00	83	0.03	75	0.03	77	0.02	89	0.02
Kapell 1951		38	0.56	79	0.00	65	0.04	54	0.04	64	0.04	59	0.04
Kissin 1993		29	0.58	22	0.00	38	0.05	28	0.23	58	0.04	34	0.10
Kushner 1989		10	0.68	25	0.00	14	0.12	14	0.40	42	0.16	14	0.25
Luisada 1991		70	0.40	90	0.00	79	0.02	83	0.02	76	0.03	88	0.02
Lushtak 2004		58	0.50	44	0.00	35	0.05	39	0.14	72	0.03	47	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		6	0.75	46	0.00	7	0.11	9	0.53	19	0.36	7	0.44
Magaloff 1978		5	0.77	6	0.04	5	0.20	5	0.66	14	0.41	5	0.52
Magin 1975		41	0.55	18	0.00	42	0.06	38	0.15	51	0.05	37	0.09
Michalowski 1933		82	0.29	63	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.12	70	0.04	43	0.07
Milkina 1970		19	0.61	67	0.00	46	0.05	53	0.05	59	0.05	51	0.05
Mohovich 1999		26	0.59	37	0.00	30	0.06	32	0.21	65	0.03	40	0.08
Moravec 1969		50	0.52	23	0.00	68	0.03	69	0.03	50	0.04	69	0.03
Morozova 2008		61	0.49	33	0.00	26	0.06	26	0.28	55	0.04	33	0.11
Neighaus 1950		17	0.63	11	0.01	21	0.08	20	0.35	47	0.06	28	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.46	53	0.00	73	0.03	80	0.03	49	0.05	58	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		32	0.57	9	0.01	54	0.04	55	0.04	69	0.03	76	0.03
Osinska 1989		30	0.58	31	0.00	48	0.06	50	0.06	50	0.05	48	0.05
Pachmann 1927		79	0.32	73	0.00	70	0.03	78	0.03	46	0.06	61	0.04
Paderewski 1930		21	0.60	5	0.05	24	0.07	34	0.19	29	0.18	23	0.18
Perlemuter 1992		44	0.53	35	0.00	20	0.08	21	0.34	42	0.10	22	0.18
Pierdomenico 2008		53	0.51	49	0.00	49	0.06	47	0.06	57	0.04	49	0.05
Poblocka 1999		27	0.59	55	0.00	64	0.03	66	0.03	52	0.04	71	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		68	0.42	50	0.00	78	0.03	70	0.03	75	0.03	74	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		55	0.51	28	0.00	27	0.06	31	0.21	36	0.14	24	0.17
Rangell 2001		33	0.57	43	0.00	33	0.04	42	0.11	55	0.05	44	0.07
Richter 1976		48	0.53	80	0.00	43	0.04	44	0.10	66	0.03	53	0.05
Rosen 1989		34	0.57	27	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	50	0.04	54	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		1	0.86	1	0.43	1	0.42	4	0.72	1	0.74	4	0.73
Rosenthal 1931		2	0.80	2	0.14	2	0.43	2	0.79	3	0.78	2	0.78
Rosenthal 1931b		3	0.79	3	0.11	3	0.44	1	0.80	3	0.78	1	0.79
Rosenthal 1931c		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931d		4	0.79	7	0.03	4	0.32	3	0.78	3	0.76	3	0.77
Rossi 2007		87	0.21	64	0.00	58	0.03	61	0.03	55	0.03	72	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		81	0.30	68	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	41	0.13	50	0.05
Rubinstein 1952		63	0.47	81	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	51	0.06	68	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		49	0.52	70	0.00	66	0.03	62	0.03	56	0.05	64	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		15	0.65	12	0.01	16	0.07	13	0.43	35	0.21	10	0.30
Shebanova 2002		66	0.45	52	0.00	77	0.03	71	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.03
Smith 1975		16	0.65	4	0.06	6	0.16	7	0.58	38	0.18	9	0.32
Sokolov 2002		11	0.68	45	0.00	17	0.07	15	0.40	42	0.17	13	0.26
Sztompka 1959		45	0.53	26	0.00	52	0.06	46	0.06	46	0.07	46	0.06
Tomsic 1995		39	0.56	84	0.00	45	0.05	43	0.11	77	0.03	45	0.06
Uninsky 1932		78	0.32	85	0.00	69	0.03	72	0.03	74	0.03	79	0.03
Uninsky 1971		62	0.48	77	0.00	60	0.04	57	0.04	55	0.05	62	0.04
Wasowski 1980		69	0.40	65	0.00	84	0.03	76	0.03	47	0.05	57	0.04
Zak 1937		57	0.50	91	0.00	55	0.04	59	0.04	66	0.04	60	0.04
Zak 1951		51	0.52	86	0.00	47	0.05	51	0.05	62	0.05	52	0.05
Average		7	0.75	29	0.00	8	0.12	6	0.59	76	0.03	29	0.13
Random 1		91	-0.01	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	25	0.25	55	0.05
Random 2		90	0.00	71	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	30	0.18	65	0.04
Random 3		89	0.09	16	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	37	0.14	56	0.05

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).