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		7	0.45	2	0.15	3	0.27	8	0.71	3	0.66	7	0.68
Anderszewski 2003		72	0.18	70	0.00	63	0.03	74	0.03	69	0.04	82	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		38	0.30	26	0.00	44	0.06	45	0.13	55	0.07	44	0.10
Bacha 2000		80	0.12	88	0.00	80	0.05	60	0.05	83	0.02	72	0.03
Badura 1965		33	0.31	12	0.01	32	0.08	26	0.43	26	0.44	19	0.43
Barbosa 1983		64	0.21	83	0.00	75	0.04	64	0.04	85	0.03	80	0.03
Biret 1990		75	0.17	32	0.00	69	0.03	82	0.03	58	0.05	70	0.04
Blet 2003		61	0.23	67	0.00	66	0.04	72	0.04	71	0.04	67	0.04
Block 1995		52	0.25	63	0.00	46	0.06	47	0.06	74	0.04	57	0.05
Blumental 1952		65	0.21	31	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	66	0.04	58	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		82	0.09	54	0.00	64	0.04	67	0.04	75	0.03	84	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		32	0.31	49	0.00	25	0.06	17	0.48	23	0.50	14	0.49
Bunin 1987		45	0.26	30	0.00	55	0.05	61	0.05	65	0.05	59	0.05
Bunin 1987b		44	0.27	57	0.00	54	0.05	57	0.05	53	0.06	54	0.05
Chiu 1999		35	0.30	55	0.00	53	0.05	63	0.05	77	0.04	63	0.04
Cohen 1997		24	0.33	39	0.00	31	0.08	19	0.47	27	0.44	17	0.45
Cortot 1951		21	0.34	41	0.00	34	0.08	31	0.40	26	0.45	21	0.42
Csalog 1996		84	0.07	52	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	78	0.04	81	0.03
Czerny 1949		31	0.31	21	0.00	22	0.08	20	0.45	20	0.69	11	0.56
Czerny 1990		22	0.33	20	0.00	33	0.09	27	0.43	36	0.36	23	0.39
Duchoud 2007		57	0.24	47	0.00	50	0.08	46	0.08	73	0.04	50	0.06
Ezaki 2006		9	0.43	6	0.06	4	0.17	9	0.67	13	0.66	8	0.66
Falvay 1989		40	0.29	64	0.00	35	0.07	32	0.40	30	0.27	26	0.33
Farrell 1958		20	0.34	9	0.03	21	0.09	38	0.29	33	0.32	27	0.30
Ferenczy 1958		51	0.25	44	0.00	27	0.06	28	0.42	25	0.68	13	0.53
Fliere 1977		25	0.33	60	0.00	39	0.10	35	0.35	68	0.04	38	0.12
Fou 1978		23	0.33	62	0.00	23	0.07	22	0.45	51	0.05	36	0.15
Francois 1956		49	0.26	59	0.00	41	0.12	39	0.27	38	0.30	30	0.28
Friedman 1923		50	0.26	71	0.00	57	0.06	53	0.06	53	0.08	49	0.07
Friedman 1923b		54	0.25	76	0.00	56	0.05	58	0.05	59	0.07	51	0.06
Friedman 1930		53	0.25	35	0.00	58	0.06	50	0.06	77	0.04	56	0.05
Garcia 2007		74	0.17	42	0.00	76	0.05	62	0.05	77	0.03	69	0.04
Garcia 2007b		79	0.12	61	0.00	82	0.03	80	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.03
Gierzod 1998		48	0.26	10	0.02	24	0.07	23	0.44	26	0.43	18	0.43
Gornostaeva 1994		15	0.38	45	0.00	13	0.12	11	0.64	19	0.60	9	0.62
Groot 1988		18	0.35	17	0.00	15	0.18	16	0.54	59	0.06	35	0.18
Harasiewicz 1955		55	0.24	46	0.00	59	0.06	51	0.06	83	0.03	71	0.04
Hatto 1993		39	0.29	13	0.01	20	0.08	36	0.31	44	0.16	32	0.22
Hatto 1997		17	0.36	33	0.00	19	0.13	25	0.43	26	0.29	25	0.35
Horowitz 1949		30	0.31	50	0.00	38	0.09	33	0.40	49	0.08	33	0.18
Indjic 1988		58	0.23	25	0.00	47	0.05	59	0.05	59	0.06	55	0.05
Kapell 1951		67	0.20	77	0.00	74	0.04	71	0.04	60	0.06	53	0.05
Kissin 1993		78	0.12	72	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.04	79	0.03
Kushner 1989		56	0.24	36	0.00	61	0.04	65	0.04	60	0.05	65	0.04
Luisada 1991		41	0.27	18	0.00	62	0.05	55	0.05	73	0.04	60	0.04
Lushtak 2004		77	0.14	78	0.00	81	0.04	70	0.04	86	0.02	83	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		71	0.18	56	0.00	78	0.03	75	0.03	87	0.02	88	0.02
Magaloff 1978		42	0.27	51	0.00	26	0.06	37	0.30	61	0.05	39	0.12
Magin 1975		89	0.01	89	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	89	0.02	87	0.02
Michalowski 1933		68	0.19	90	0.00	67	0.03	78	0.03	81	0.04	78	0.03
Milkina 1970		63	0.21	43	0.00	48	0.05	56	0.05	46	0.09	47	0.07
Mohovich 1999		43	0.27	22	0.00	28	0.06	21	0.45	51	0.07	34	0.18
Moravec 1969		13	0.40	19	0.00	18	0.10	15	0.56	21	0.38	16	0.46
Morozova 2008		12	0.40	24	0.00	12	0.13	14	0.60	30	0.30	20	0.42
Neighaus 1950		29	0.31	73	0.00	40	0.11	40	0.26	63	0.05	41	0.11
Niedzielski 1931		47	0.26	58	0.00	49	0.06	48	0.06	78	0.03	64	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		27	0.32	74	0.00	42	0.08	42	0.15	70	0.04	45	0.08
Osinska 1989		69	0.19	79	0.00	72	0.04	69	0.04	79	0.03	73	0.03
Pachmann 1927		81	0.11	75	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.03	77	0.03
Paderewski 1930		76	0.16	65	0.00	73	0.03	73	0.03	83	0.03	76	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		37	0.30	29	0.00	16	0.19	29	0.41	43	0.20	29	0.29
Pierdomenico 2008		60	0.23	80	0.00	65	0.04	68	0.04	74	0.03	74	0.03
Poblocka 1999		34	0.31	34	0.00	30	0.09	24	0.43	43	0.14	31	0.25
Rabcewiczowa 1932		11	0.41	16	0.01	11	0.30	7	0.72	5	0.79	6	0.75
Rachmaninoff 1923		3	0.50	7	0.06	8	0.29	1	0.83	9	0.73	5	0.78
Rangell 2001		26	0.32	40	0.00	29	0.07	18	0.48	38	0.19	28	0.30
Richter 1976		59	0.23	91	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	73	0.04	75	0.03
Rosen 1989		10	0.42	23	0.00	10	0.21	12	0.64	23	0.50	10	0.57
Rosenthal 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931		6	0.47	11	0.02	6	0.30	4	0.80	5	0.85	2	0.82
Rosenthal 1931b		4	0.50	3	0.09	2	0.25	3	0.80	4	0.87	1	0.83
Rosenthal 1931c		1	0.51	15	0.01	5	0.20	2	0.82	4	0.82	3	0.82
Rosenthal 1931d		5	0.49	1	0.29	1	0.28	6	0.78	4	0.85	4	0.81
Rossi 2007		91	-0.06	81	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.03	86	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		16	0.38	4	0.08	17	0.13	30	0.41	18	0.35	24	0.38
Rubinstein 1952		46	0.26	27	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.14	77	0.03	52	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		19	0.35	14	0.01	36	0.08	41	0.25	74	0.04	42	0.10
Schilhawsky 1960		85	0.07	68	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.02
Shebanova 2002		70	0.18	82	0.00	79	0.04	66	0.04	78	0.04	68	0.04
Smith 1975		28	0.32	66	0.00	37	0.08	34	0.38	28	0.41	22	0.39
Sokolov 2002		66	0.20	38	0.00	60	0.06	52	0.06	76	0.03	62	0.04
Sztompka 1959		8	0.44	5	0.07	7	0.27	10	0.66	24	0.46	12	0.55
Tomsic 1995		73	0.17	84	0.00	52	0.05	54	0.05	67	0.04	66	0.04
Uninsky 1932		36	0.30	48	0.00	45	0.07	44	0.13	66	0.05	46	0.08
Uninsky 1971		14	0.39	28	0.00	14	0.19	13	0.61	22	0.37	15	0.48
Wasowski 1980		62	0.23	85	0.00	70	0.03	83	0.03	56	0.06	61	0.04
Zak 1937		86	0.05	86	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.01	90	0.01
Zak 1951		87	0.03	87	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Average		2	0.51	8	0.05	9	0.25	5	0.79	80	0.03	37	0.15
Random 1		88	0.01	53	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	26	0.27	48	0.07
Random 2		83	0.09	69	0.00	77	0.03	76	0.03	18	0.40	40	0.11
Random 3		90	-0.01	37	0.00	68	0.03	81	0.03	22	0.33	43	0.10

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).