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		50	0.30	30	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	83	0.02	48	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		13	0.43	49	0.00	10	0.13	16	0.45	38	0.19	8	0.29
Ashkenazy 1981		30	0.36	50	0.00	36	0.06	34	0.18	87	0.03	44	0.07
Bacha 2000		36	0.34	31	0.00	60	0.04	56	0.04	52	0.05	50	0.04
Badura 1965		65	0.25	51	0.00	54	0.04	64	0.04	74	0.03	75	0.03
Barbosa 1983		79	0.18	14	0.00	83	0.02	83	0.02	89	0.02	85	0.02
Biret 1990		66	0.24	15	0.00	75	0.04	65	0.04	84	0.03	79	0.03
Blet 2003		77	0.21	52	0.00	80	0.02	84	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.02
Block 1995		21	0.38	32	0.00	29	0.08	28	0.26	60	0.04	27	0.10
Blumental 1952		76	0.21	53	0.00	65	0.03	73	0.03	55	0.04	76	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		42	0.32	21	0.00	30	0.07	30	0.22	62	0.04	33	0.09
Brailowsky 1960		5	0.51	16	0.00	5	0.21	7	0.60	9	0.50	5	0.55
Bunin 1987		27	0.37	54	0.00	35	0.07	32	0.20	59	0.04	34	0.09
Bunin 1987b		26	0.37	55	0.00	33	0.06	31	0.21	67	0.04	31	0.09
Chiu 1999		63	0.25	33	0.00	56	0.05	55	0.05	76	0.04	52	0.04
Cohen 1997		38	0.34	9	0.00	32	0.07	27	0.27	22	0.35	7	0.31
Cortot 1951		53	0.29	34	0.00	74	0.03	70	0.03	75	0.03	81	0.03
Csalog 1996		86	0.10	56	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01
Czerny 1949		55	0.28	57	0.00	41	0.06	39	0.16	77	0.03	42	0.07
Czerny 1990		75	0.22	22	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	81	0.03	78	0.03
Duchoud 2007		67	0.24	58	0.00	76	0.04	66	0.04	87	0.02	73	0.03
Ezaki 2006		12	0.44	7	0.00	15	0.06	8	0.54	66	0.04	16	0.15
Falvay 1989		25	0.38	10	0.00	24	0.11	22	0.35	81	0.03	26	0.10
Farrell 1958		35	0.34	59	0.00	52	0.04	60	0.04	79	0.03	66	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		57	0.27	4	0.00	71	0.03	79	0.03	61	0.04	72	0.03
Fliere 1977		29	0.36	60	0.00	31	0.08	33	0.20	87	0.02	45	0.06
Fou 1978		14	0.43	35	0.00	17	0.08	13	0.47	51	0.06	14	0.17
Francois 1956		39	0.34	36	0.00	26	0.06	25	0.33	73	0.03	29	0.10
Friedman 1923		81	0.16	61	0.00	66	0.03	76	0.03	56	0.06	61	0.04
Friedman 1923b		82	0.16	62	0.00	67	0.03	67	0.03	67	0.04	77	0.03
Friedman 1930		73	0.22	23	0.00	42	0.06	44	0.13	50	0.05	39	0.08
Garcia 2007		71	0.23	63	0.00	64	0.03	68	0.03	63	0.04	74	0.03
Garcia 2007b		83	0.16	37	0.00	63	0.04	57	0.04	54	0.04	60	0.04
Gierzod 1998		8	0.47	64	0.00	9	0.13	10	0.51	46	0.08	13	0.20
Gornostaeva 1994		10	0.44	65	0.00	18	0.07	15	0.46	48	0.05	18	0.15
Groot 1988		22	0.38	38	0.00	14	0.06	20	0.38	64	0.04	24	0.12
Harasiewicz 1955		31	0.36	66	0.00	22	0.11	18	0.42	76	0.03	25	0.11
Hatto 1993		64	0.25	67	0.00	72	0.03	71	0.03	62	0.04	80	0.03
Hatto 1997		56	0.28	68	0.00	48	0.05	52	0.05	84	0.03	59	0.04
Horowitz 1949		20	0.38	69	0.00	23	0.12	21	0.37	39	0.12	12	0.21
Indjic 1988		70	0.23	70	0.00	77	0.04	61	0.04	69	0.04	58	0.04
Kapell 1951		72	0.23	71	0.00	84	0.03	72	0.03	90	0.02	83	0.02
Kissin 1993		41	0.33	39	0.00	37	0.06	40	0.15	74	0.04	38	0.08
Kushner 1989		11	0.44	72	0.00	21	0.10	26	0.28	74	0.03	30	0.09
Luisada 1991		45	0.32	40	0.00	61	0.04	59	0.04	86	0.03	62	0.03
Lushtak 2004		49	0.30	73	0.00	40	0.05	41	0.15	72	0.03	43	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		9	0.46	41	0.00	16	0.07	12	0.49	60	0.04	19	0.14
Magaloff 1978		7	0.50	74	0.00	6	0.24	6	0.61	33	0.18	6	0.33
Magin 1975		32	0.35	75	0.00	34	0.06	37	0.17	61	0.04	36	0.08
Michalowski 1933		87	0.08	76	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	76	0.04	70	0.03
Milkina 1970		18	0.40	77	0.00	13	0.06	19	0.39	41	0.16	10	0.25
Mohovich 1999		19	0.40	78	0.00	11	0.08	14	0.46	53	0.05	17	0.15
Moravec 1969		44	0.32	17	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	82	0.03	51	0.04
Morozova 2008		24	0.38	5	0.00	12	0.07	11	0.50	59	0.04	20	0.14
Neighaus 1950		23	0.38	42	0.00	27	0.06	24	0.34	79	0.03	28	0.10
Niedzielski 1931		62	0.25	18	0.00	62	0.05	46	0.05	66	0.04	54	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		54	0.28	79	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03	69	0.03
Osinska 1989		61	0.25	80	0.00	69	0.03	74	0.03	81	0.03	63	0.03
Pachmann 1927		68	0.23	81	0.00	47	0.04	58	0.04	72	0.03	68	0.03
Paderewski 1930		60	0.27	19	0.00	70	0.03	69	0.03	66	0.03	67	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		51	0.29	82	0.00	43	0.06	35	0.18	61	0.04	35	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		59	0.27	83	0.00	58	0.05	49	0.05	56	0.04	53	0.04
Poblocka 1999		69	0.23	84	0.00	85	0.02	82	0.02	87	0.03	82	0.02
Rabcewiczowa 1932		74	0.22	20	0.00	50	0.05	48	0.05	68	0.03	55	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		28	0.37	24	0.00	20	0.08	17	0.42	42	0.11	11	0.21
Rangell 2001		15	0.41	85	0.00	19	0.07	23	0.35	49	0.05	22	0.13
Richter 1976		52	0.29	86	0.00	59	0.05	50	0.05	79	0.03	57	0.04
Rosen 1989		17	0.40	43	0.00	28	0.07	29	0.23	75	0.03	40	0.08
Rosenthal 1930		4	0.61	8	0.00	4	0.34	4	0.79	2	0.76	4	0.77
Rosenthal 1931		1	0.94	1	0.91	1	0.90	1	0.99	1	1.00	1	0.99
Rosenthal 1931b		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931c		3	0.77	3	0.01	3	0.86	3	0.95	1	0.92	3	0.93
Rosenthal 1931d		2	0.93	2	0.08	2	0.94	2	0.99	1	0.99	2	0.99
Rossi 2007		85	0.11	87	0.00	68	0.03	75	0.03	50	0.04	65	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		47	0.31	44	0.00	25	0.09	38	0.17	16	0.41	9	0.26
Rubinstein 1952		58	0.27	88	0.00	57	0.05	51	0.05	64	0.05	49	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		34	0.35	11	0.00	46	0.05	47	0.05	51	0.06	47	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		40	0.33	89	0.00	51	0.04	62	0.04	77	0.03	71	0.03
Shebanova 2002		78	0.20	12	0.00	79	0.02	85	0.02	84	0.03	88	0.02
Smith 1975		16	0.41	25	0.00	8	0.13	9	0.54	47	0.05	15	0.16
Sokolov 2002		37	0.34	26	0.00	53	0.04	63	0.04	87	0.02	64	0.03
Sztompka 1959		80	0.17	27	0.00	82	0.02	86	0.02	82	0.03	84	0.02
Tomsic 1995		46	0.32	28	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.13	83	0.03	46	0.06
Uninsky 1932		84	0.15	45	0.00	86	0.03	78	0.03	85	0.02	87	0.02
Uninsky 1971		48	0.30	6	0.00	39	0.05	42	0.15	63	0.03	41	0.07
Wasowski 1980		88	0.08	90	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	89	0.01	90	0.01
Zak 1937		43	0.32	13	0.00	55	0.05	54	0.05	87	0.03	56	0.04
Zak 1951		33	0.35	46	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.18	72	0.04	37	0.08
Average		6	0.51	91	0.00	7	0.26	5	0.65	82	0.03	21	0.14
Random 1		89	0.04	47	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	9	0.45	32	0.09
Random 2		90	0.04	29	0.00	87	0.03	80	0.03	3	0.46	23	0.12
Random 3		91	-0.03	48	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).