Rosen 1989

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		34	0.41	32	0.00	38	0.06	44	0.12	14	0.51	38	0.25
Anderszewski 2003		78	0.31	75	0.00	71	0.03	75	0.03	58	0.05	81	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		66	0.34	71	0.00	78	0.03	86	0.03	66	0.05	84	0.04
Bacha 2000		85	0.29	81	0.00	85	0.03	79	0.03	74	0.03	87	0.03
Badura 1965		68	0.34	83	0.00	51	0.05	55	0.05	15	0.46	47	0.15
Barbosa 1983		61	0.35	91	0.00	64	0.04	68	0.04	67	0.05	80	0.04
Biret 1990		59	0.35	65	0.00	65	0.04	61	0.04	38	0.24	62	0.10
Blet 2003		74	0.33	77	0.00	77	0.03	88	0.03	55	0.05	82	0.04
Block 1995		28	0.42	55	0.00	18	0.10	18	0.39	13	0.57	16	0.47
Blumental 1952		73	0.33	24	0.00	60	0.03	78	0.03	41	0.15	69	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		7	0.50	17	0.00	6	0.29	6	0.67	8	0.68	6	0.67
Brailowsky 1960		37	0.41	59	0.00	40	0.06	35	0.18	20	0.58	28	0.32
Bunin 1987		82	0.30	78	0.00	68	0.05	54	0.05	39	0.16	65	0.09
Bunin 1987b		81	0.30	84	0.00	67	0.03	76	0.03	40	0.20	67	0.08
Chiu 1999		11	0.47	37	0.00	14	0.11	9	0.51	7	0.58	10	0.54
Cohen 1997		51	0.38	14	0.00	53	0.05	48	0.05	11	0.62	43	0.18
Cortot 1951		56	0.37	31	0.00	26	0.07	39	0.16	18	0.51	33	0.29
Csalog 1996		19	0.45	19	0.00	30	0.06	28	0.28	12	0.48	25	0.37
Czerny 1949		80	0.31	87	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	56	0.05	83	0.04
Czerny 1990		63	0.35	85	0.00	72	0.04	71	0.04	81	0.04	85	0.04
Duchoud 2007		25	0.44	44	0.00	15	0.10	11	0.50	3	0.72	7	0.60
Ezaki 2006		13	0.46	34	0.00	19	0.11	15	0.43	13	0.58	11	0.50
Falvay 1989		38	0.41	64	0.00	43	0.07	36	0.18	45	0.10	52	0.13
Farrell 1958		58	0.35	18	0.00	54	0.04	57	0.04	37	0.16	66	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		69	0.34	12	0.00	62	0.04	69	0.04	24	0.61	45	0.16
Fliere 1977		3	0.59	2	0.05	2	0.46	2	0.81	3	0.77	2	0.79
Fou 1978		14	0.46	33	0.00	20	0.09	29	0.27	29	0.33	31	0.30
Francois 1956		65	0.35	51	0.00	69	0.04	62	0.04	22	0.43	56	0.13
Friedman 1923		27	0.43	28	0.00	28	0.06	22	0.31	9	0.66	17	0.45
Friedman 1923b		29	0.42	42	0.00	29	0.06	24	0.30	9	0.66	18	0.44
Friedman 1930		26	0.43	16	0.00	13	0.08	17	0.42	10	0.60	13	0.50
Garcia 2007		47	0.39	9	0.00	36	0.05	42	0.14	16	0.47	37	0.26
Garcia 2007b		87	0.26	72	0.00	81	0.03	87	0.03	46	0.06	86	0.04
Gierzod 1998		21	0.44	45	0.00	23	0.08	23	0.30	25	0.38	27	0.34
Gornostaeva 1994		4	0.54	6	0.01	5	0.39	5	0.69	4	0.78	5	0.73
Groot 1988		45	0.39	13	0.00	16	0.08	16	0.42	26	0.37	22	0.39
Harasiewicz 1955		8	0.49	38	0.00	10	0.11	10	0.50	36	0.30	23	0.39
Hatto 1993		32	0.42	69	0.00	33	0.06	41	0.15	58	0.07	63	0.10
Hatto 1997		31	0.42	26	0.00	32	0.06	32	0.21	34	0.24	40	0.22
Horowitz 1949		77	0.32	66	0.00	70	0.04	65	0.04	26	0.48	48	0.14
Indjic 1988		50	0.38	58	0.00	57	0.04	59	0.04	55	0.06	75	0.05
Kapell 1951		44	0.39	86	0.00	55	0.04	64	0.04	70	0.05	76	0.04
Kissin 1993		71	0.33	89	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	65	0.06	79	0.04
Kushner 1989		18	0.45	60	0.00	11	0.08	14	0.44	27	0.35	21	0.39
Luisada 1991		54	0.37	15	0.00	61	0.03	73	0.03	42	0.12	70	0.06
Lushtak 2004		49	0.39	10	0.00	50	0.06	47	0.06	29	0.30	55	0.13
Malcuzynski 1961		41	0.40	57	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	66	0.05	74	0.05
Magaloff 1978		5	0.51	5	0.01	7	0.20	7	0.57	9	0.56	8	0.56
Magin 1975		67	0.34	35	0.00	73	0.04	66	0.04	52	0.06	72	0.05
Michalowski 1933		83	0.30	25	0.00	87	0.03	77	0.03	54	0.06	78	0.04
Milkina 1970		60	0.35	39	0.00	59	0.04	60	0.04	50	0.07	73	0.05
Mohovich 1999		6	0.50	8	0.01	4	0.27	4	0.72	3	0.77	4	0.74
Moravec 1969		53	0.37	29	0.00	42	0.06	37	0.18	38	0.21	41	0.19
Morozova 2008		39	0.40	43	0.00	24	0.07	25	0.30	33	0.32	30	0.31
Neighaus 1950		23	0.44	56	0.00	25	0.07	27	0.29	19	0.44	26	0.36
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.35	79	0.00	56	0.04	72	0.04	27	0.32	58	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		10	0.48	49	0.00	9	0.11	12	0.48	11	0.50	14	0.49
Osinska 1989		2	0.60	3	0.04	3	0.45	3	0.81	4	0.79	1	0.80
Pachmann 1927		20	0.45	7	0.01	27	0.07	30	0.22	6	0.62	24	0.37
Paderewski 1930		88	0.25	73	0.00	88	0.04	67	0.04	70	0.04	77	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		22	0.44	22	0.00	22	0.08	19	0.39	5	0.63	12	0.50
Pierdomenico 2008		15	0.46	23	0.00	35	0.05	43	0.13	10	0.55	35	0.27
Poblocka 1999		24	0.44	27	0.00	21	0.10	21	0.38	23	0.49	19	0.43
Rabcewiczowa 1932		48	0.39	74	0.00	37	0.06	33	0.20	23	0.50	29	0.32
Rachmaninoff 1923		70	0.34	61	0.00	44	0.08	40	0.16	31	0.31	39	0.22
Rangell 2001		40	0.40	4	0.01	34	0.06	38	0.17	16	0.54	32	0.30
Richter 1976		9	0.48	11	0.00	12	0.08	20	0.38	28	0.43	20	0.40
Rosen 1989		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1930		55	0.37	40	0.00	58	0.05	53	0.05	14	0.62	42	0.18
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.29	46	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	34	0.38	59	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		79	0.31	76	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	25	0.48	57	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		52	0.37	30	0.00	52	0.05	52	0.05	16	0.52	46	0.16
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.28	67	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	21	0.42	60	0.11
Rossi 2007		75	0.32	21	0.00	86	0.04	70	0.04	18	0.42	51	0.13
Rubinstein 1939		76	0.32	47	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	57	0.04	88	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		42	0.40	41	0.00	47	0.05	51	0.05	49	0.08	71	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		17	0.45	52	0.00	31	0.06	26	0.29	66	0.06	54	0.13
Schilhawsky 1960		62	0.35	50	0.00	75	0.04	58	0.04	33	0.19	64	0.09
Shebanova 2002		12	0.47	48	0.00	8	0.16	8	0.56	13	0.54	9	0.55
Smith 1975		46	0.39	53	0.00	66	0.05	56	0.05	37	0.19	61	0.10
Sokolov 2002		57	0.37	36	0.00	63	0.04	63	0.04	27	0.41	50	0.13
Sztompka 1959		30	0.42	70	0.00	49	0.06	46	0.06	34	0.33	49	0.14
Tomsic 1995		43	0.40	54	0.00	39	0.05	34	0.18	18	0.42	36	0.27
Uninsky 1932		72	0.33	62	0.00	74	0.03	74	0.03	72	0.03	89	0.03
Uninsky 1971		16	0.45	63	0.00	17	0.08	13	0.45	18	0.49	15	0.47
Wasowski 1980		35	0.41	20	0.00	41	0.06	31	0.21	34	0.36	34	0.27
Zak 1937		33	0.41	80	0.00	46	0.05	49	0.05	27	0.32	53	0.13
Zak 1951		36	0.41	68	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	24	0.37	44	0.17
Average		1	0.68	1	0.77	1	0.77	1	0.90	8	0.61	3	0.74
Random 1		89	0.00	88	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	22	0.36	68	0.08
Random 2		90	-0.02	90	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	57	0.05	90	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.07	82	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	57	0.03	91	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).