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		10	0.43	24	0.00	9	0.41	8	0.75	3	0.66	8	0.70
Anderszewski 2003		67	0.26	51	0.00	55	0.06	48	0.06	79	0.03	59	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		33	0.33	33	0.00	43	0.07	43	0.18	68	0.05	45	0.09
Bacha 2000		73	0.22	54	0.00	57	0.04	70	0.04	84	0.03	72	0.03
Badura 1965		49	0.29	39	0.00	49	0.05	58	0.05	72	0.03	64	0.04
Barbosa 1983		46	0.30	59	0.00	54	0.06	50	0.06	72	0.04	52	0.05
Biret 1990		42	0.31	20	0.00	41	0.07	41	0.23	59	0.05	41	0.11
Blet 2003		47	0.30	27	0.00	50	0.05	61	0.05	78	0.03	60	0.04
Block 1995		48	0.30	90	0.00	35	0.09	34	0.32	78	0.03	44	0.10
Blumental 1952		26	0.35	11	0.01	18	0.11	17	0.60	45	0.12	17	0.27
Boshniakovich 1969		78	0.20	42	0.00	69	0.04	75	0.04	79	0.04	65	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		7	0.44	15	0.00	8	0.27	9	0.75	9	0.69	7	0.72
Bunin 1987		60	0.27	82	0.00	67	0.05	54	0.05	68	0.04	66	0.04
Bunin 1987b		62	0.27	72	0.00	64	0.05	60	0.05	64	0.04	57	0.04
Chiu 1999		53	0.28	83	0.00	60	0.04	68	0.04	80	0.03	74	0.03
Cohen 1997		50	0.29	34	0.00	31	0.12	33	0.38	38	0.24	16	0.30
Cortot 1951		41	0.31	36	0.00	37	0.07	36	0.30	33	0.23	18	0.26
Csalog 1996		76	0.21	56	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.03	82	0.03
Czerny 1949		45	0.30	44	0.00	38	0.07	39	0.27	44	0.15	23	0.20
Czerny 1990		20	0.37	32	0.00	22	0.10	15	0.61	51	0.07	21	0.21
Duchoud 2007		77	0.21	68	0.00	77	0.04	78	0.04	79	0.04	63	0.04
Ezaki 2006		13	0.40	25	0.00	12	0.23	11	0.69	32	0.41	11	0.53
Falvay 1989		32	0.33	50	0.00	36	0.13	32	0.40	63	0.05	36	0.14
Farrell 1958		29	0.34	9	0.01	33	0.10	37	0.30	43	0.14	22	0.20
Ferenczy 1958		30	0.34	35	0.00	29	0.12	28	0.50	25	0.58	10	0.54
Fliere 1977		12	0.41	37	0.00	13	0.14	22	0.56	62	0.04	31	0.15
Fou 1978		16	0.37	40	0.00	25	0.10	23	0.56	60	0.05	27	0.17
Francois 1956		56	0.28	65	0.00	47	0.05	57	0.05	61	0.04	70	0.04
Friedman 1923		61	0.27	74	0.00	63	0.05	62	0.05	69	0.04	71	0.04
Friedman 1923b		57	0.28	29	0.00	56	0.04	64	0.04	76	0.04	67	0.04
Friedman 1930		52	0.28	52	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.13	47	0.07	43	0.10
Garcia 2007		83	0.18	73	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.03
Garcia 2007b		79	0.20	71	0.00	79	0.04	66	0.04	88	0.02	87	0.03
Gierzod 1998		25	0.36	16	0.00	23	0.10	26	0.55	48	0.07	24	0.20
Gornostaeva 1994		24	0.36	91	0.00	28	0.11	25	0.55	46	0.08	20	0.21
Groot 1988		11	0.41	41	0.00	10	0.27	12	0.68	36	0.25	14	0.41
Harasiewicz 1955		39	0.31	84	0.00	51	0.06	51	0.06	84	0.03	68	0.04
Hatto 1993		21	0.37	10	0.01	27	0.09	29	0.43	64	0.05	35	0.15
Hatto 1997		14	0.39	46	0.00	24	0.11	27	0.54	61	0.05	30	0.16
Horowitz 1949		27	0.35	26	0.00	21	0.09	21	0.57	18	0.53	9	0.55
Indjic 1988		35	0.32	85	0.00	39	0.08	38	0.28	77	0.04	38	0.11
Kapell 1951		55	0.28	86	0.00	66	0.05	55	0.05	83	0.03	56	0.04
Kissin 1993		86	0.17	79	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	85	0.03	90	0.02
Kushner 1989		58	0.28	62	0.00	72	0.04	71	0.04	87	0.03	77	0.03
Luisada 1991		36	0.32	14	0.00	48	0.05	53	0.05	81	0.03	53	0.04
Lushtak 2004		64	0.26	45	0.00	61	0.04	69	0.04	83	0.03	85	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		66	0.26	66	0.00	73	0.04	74	0.04	79	0.03	78	0.03
Magaloff 1978		15	0.38	43	0.00	14	0.17	16	0.60	65	0.04	32	0.15
Magin 1975		75	0.22	47	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.04	76	0.03
Michalowski 1933		80	0.19	64	0.00	70	0.04	77	0.04	85	0.03	81	0.03
Milkina 1970		54	0.28	30	0.00	42	0.07	42	0.19	58	0.05	42	0.10
Mohovich 1999		28	0.35	38	0.00	30	0.17	24	0.55	79	0.04	34	0.15
Moravec 1969		9	0.43	19	0.00	11	0.18	10	0.73	26	0.33	12	0.49
Morozova 2008		34	0.32	13	0.00	34	0.10	35	0.31	65	0.04	39	0.11
Neighaus 1950		37	0.32	61	0.00	32	0.11	30	0.42	55	0.05	37	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		44	0.30	21	0.00	26	0.08	31	0.41	42	0.15	19	0.25
Ohlsson 1999		38	0.32	76	0.00	52	0.07	46	0.07	55	0.05	48	0.06
Osinska 1989		71	0.25	88	0.00	75	0.04	67	0.04	88	0.02	73	0.03
Pachmann 1927		84	0.17	67	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	84	0.03	80	0.03
Paderewski 1930		87	0.15	87	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		68	0.26	48	0.00	46	0.06	49	0.06	44	0.11	46	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		74	0.22	60	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	86	0.03	75	0.03
Poblocka 1999		23	0.36	22	0.00	19	0.11	18	0.59	53	0.06	25	0.19
Rabcewiczowa 1932		8	0.44	7	0.01	7	0.28	7	0.77	5	0.70	6	0.73
Rachmaninoff 1923		6	0.53	5	0.03	5	0.57	5	0.87	2	0.85	5	0.86
Rangell 2001		70	0.26	8	0.01	59	0.04	73	0.04	72	0.03	86	0.03
Richter 1976		43	0.31	58	0.00	53	0.05	59	0.05	61	0.05	51	0.05
Rosen 1989		19	0.37	12	0.00	17	0.10	14	0.62	53	0.05	26	0.18
Rosenthal 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931		4	0.57	6	0.03	4	0.67	3	0.88	4	0.91	3	0.89
Rosenthal 1931b		2	0.60	1	0.35	1	0.34	1	0.90	4	0.93	1	0.91
Rosenthal 1931c		1	0.61	3	0.11	3	0.52	2	0.90	4	0.91	2	0.90
Rosenthal 1931d		3	0.59	2	0.33	2	0.38	4	0.88	4	0.91	4	0.89
Rossi 2007		89	0.04	80	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		40	0.31	31	0.00	40	0.09	40	0.24	41	0.10	33	0.15
Rubinstein 1952		59	0.27	63	0.00	58	0.05	63	0.05	77	0.03	69	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		31	0.33	17	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	89	0.03	49	0.06
Schilhawsky 1960		65	0.26	55	0.00	68	0.06	47	0.06	81	0.03	61	0.04
Shebanova 2002		72	0.22	69	0.00	76	0.04	76	0.04	87	0.03	83	0.03
Smith 1975		22	0.37	28	0.00	20	0.08	20	0.58	32	0.32	13	0.43
Sokolov 2002		69	0.26	53	0.00	65	0.05	52	0.05	73	0.03	55	0.04
Sztompka 1959		18	0.37	18	0.00	15	0.11	19	0.58	44	0.16	15	0.30
Tomsic 1995		81	0.19	75	0.00	74	0.04	72	0.04	80	0.04	58	0.04
Uninsky 1932		51	0.29	23	0.00	62	0.05	56	0.05	76	0.03	62	0.04
Uninsky 1971		17	0.37	49	0.00	16	0.15	13	0.62	69	0.04	28	0.16
Wasowski 1980		63	0.26	77	0.00	71	0.04	65	0.04	65	0.05	54	0.04
Zak 1937		82	0.18	78	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.03	88	0.02
Zak 1951		85	0.17	89	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.03	89	0.02
Average		5	0.53	4	0.07	6	0.36	6	0.84	86	0.03	29	0.16
Random 1		91	-0.01	70	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	30	0.28	47	0.07
Random 2		88	0.06	81	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	18	0.38	40	0.11
Random 3		90	-0.01	57	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	19	0.32	50	0.06

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).