Rosenthal 1931

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		11	0.37	69	0.00	14	0.20	11	0.72	24	0.43	10	0.56
Anderszewski 2003		13	0.37	21	0.00	12	0.20	12	0.71	34	0.35	12	0.50
Ashkenazy 1981		46	0.23	66	0.00	47	0.07	49	0.07	82	0.03	50	0.05
Bacha 2000		25	0.30	70	0.00	27	0.11	26	0.44	33	0.21	15	0.30
Badura 1965		23	0.31	8	0.00	23	0.09	21	0.56	38	0.15	16	0.29
Barbosa 1983		40	0.25	23	0.00	57	0.04	68	0.04	85	0.02	74	0.03
Biret 1990		77	0.14	77	0.00	80	0.04	71	0.04	84	0.03	81	0.03
Blet 2003		55	0.20	89	0.00	60	0.05	57	0.05	66	0.04	62	0.04
Block 1995		37	0.25	61	0.00	32	0.08	29	0.42	85	0.03	37	0.11
Blumental 1952		15	0.35	85	0.00	13	0.19	18	0.60	34	0.26	14	0.39
Boshniakovich 1969		69	0.17	52	0.00	59	0.04	63	0.04	87	0.03	79	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		9	0.39	28	0.00	8	0.31	6	0.78	16	0.63	6	0.70
Bunin 1987		65	0.18	71	0.00	78	0.04	62	0.04	75	0.03	80	0.03
Bunin 1987b		68	0.18	78	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	66	0.04	72	0.03
Chiu 1999		51	0.21	72	0.00	58	0.05	61	0.05	86	0.02	70	0.03
Cohen 1997		24	0.30	46	0.00	20	0.20	20	0.57	24	0.53	11	0.55
Cortot 1951		35	0.26	49	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	59	0.06	48	0.06
Csalog 1996		70	0.17	25	0.00	72	0.04	74	0.04	79	0.03	75	0.03
Czerny 1949		42	0.24	29	0.00	39	0.08	39	0.27	55	0.05	30	0.12
Czerny 1990		50	0.21	36	0.00	51	0.07	48	0.07	64	0.05	47	0.06
Duchoud 2007		87	0.08	79	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.03	89	0.02
Ezaki 2006		7	0.42	24	0.00	7	0.31	9	0.75	26	0.49	7	0.61
Falvay 1989		20	0.32	80	0.00	24	0.11	22	0.53	65	0.05	24	0.16
Farrell 1958		36	0.25	4	0.00	44	0.08	43	0.18	79	0.02	46	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		8	0.40	16	0.00	9	0.20	7	0.78	3	0.78	5	0.78
Fliere 1977		38	0.25	81	0.00	38	0.08	38	0.27	64	0.04	39	0.10
Fou 1978		14	0.35	9	0.00	17	0.13	13	0.69	51	0.06	18	0.20
Francois 1956		75	0.16	86	0.00	52	0.05	56	0.05	70	0.04	66	0.04
Friedman 1923		67	0.18	34	0.00	67	0.04	64	0.04	81	0.03	83	0.03
Friedman 1923b		73	0.17	37	0.00	70	0.04	75	0.04	77	0.04	64	0.04
Friedman 1930		78	0.14	35	0.00	63	0.05	60	0.05	78	0.03	63	0.04
Garcia 2007		81	0.11	38	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	86	0.02	90	0.02
Garcia 2007b		85	0.10	90	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.03
Gierzod 1998		6	0.44	44	0.00	6	0.38	8	0.75	17	0.48	8	0.60
Gornostaeva 1994		39	0.25	62	0.00	40	0.08	42	0.19	76	0.03	43	0.08
Groot 1988		45	0.23	39	0.00	22	0.09	24	0.48	81	0.03	32	0.12
Harasiewicz 1955		41	0.25	56	0.00	50	0.07	47	0.07	85	0.03	52	0.05
Hatto 1993		33	0.27	91	0.00	41	0.08	40	0.23	74	0.04	41	0.10
Hatto 1997		30	0.28	82	0.00	35	0.08	36	0.36	84	0.03	40	0.10
Horowitz 1949		79	0.14	63	0.00	56	0.04	65	0.04	54	0.05	58	0.04
Indjic 1988		43	0.24	13	0.00	49	0.06	51	0.06	78	0.04	49	0.05
Kapell 1951		74	0.17	64	0.00	79	0.04	66	0.04	88	0.03	71	0.03
Kissin 1993		64	0.18	57	0.00	73	0.04	76	0.04	81	0.04	61	0.04
Kushner 1989		22	0.31	14	0.00	26	0.09	32	0.40	72	0.04	29	0.13
Luisada 1991		60	0.19	26	0.00	75	0.03	79	0.03	85	0.03	67	0.03
Lushtak 2004		19	0.32	30	0.00	19	0.21	17	0.63	60	0.05	22	0.18
Malcuzynski 1961		29	0.29	10	0.00	21	0.10	25	0.47	70	0.04	26	0.14
Magaloff 1978		34	0.26	73	0.00	30	0.07	33	0.39	76	0.03	33	0.11
Magin 1975		58	0.20	27	0.00	65	0.04	67	0.04	78	0.04	56	0.04
Michalowski 1933		88	0.08	31	0.00	89	0.02	86	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02
Milkina 1970		26	0.29	47	0.00	29	0.07	35	0.37	82	0.03	34	0.11
Mohovich 1999		18	0.33	7	0.00	18	0.17	15	0.68	49	0.05	23	0.18
Moravec 1969		12	0.37	40	0.00	10	0.19	16	0.63	34	0.27	13	0.41
Morozova 2008		17	0.33	58	0.00	28	0.11	23	0.50	74	0.04	27	0.14
Neighaus 1950		66	0.18	53	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	78	0.03	65	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		48	0.22	18	0.00	25	0.09	27	0.44	57	0.05	25	0.15
Ohlsson 1999		53	0.21	48	0.00	64	0.05	54	0.05	86	0.03	60	0.04
Osinska 1989		52	0.21	59	0.00	61	0.04	69	0.04	86	0.03	69	0.03
Pachmann 1927		80	0.13	32	0.00	83	0.02	85	0.02	86	0.03	87	0.02
Paderewski 1930		82	0.10	65	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	83	0.03	86	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		71	0.17	15	0.00	74	0.04	73	0.04	85	0.03	68	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		83	0.10	83	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.03	85	0.02
Poblocka 1999		47	0.23	50	0.00	42	0.07	41	0.20	86	0.03	42	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		16	0.34	41	0.00	11	0.18	10	0.72	27	0.44	9	0.56
Rachmaninoff 1923		31	0.28	12	0.00	15	0.11	19	0.59	51	0.06	20	0.19
Rangell 2001		57	0.20	19	0.00	43	0.07	44	0.15	81	0.02	51	0.05
Richter 1976		63	0.18	54	0.00	69	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.04	73	0.03
Rosen 1989		27	0.29	11	0.00	37	0.11	34	0.38	85	0.03	38	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		4	0.57	5	0.00	4	0.75	4	0.91	3	0.88	4	0.89
Rosenthal 1931		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931b		1	0.85	1	0.95	1	0.94	1	0.99	1	0.99	1	0.99
Rosenthal 1931c		3	0.71	3	0.02	3	0.89	3	0.97	3	0.95	3	0.96
Rosenthal 1931d		2	0.76	2	0.02	2	0.80	2	0.97	2	0.98	2	0.97
Rossi 2007		84	0.10	67	0.00	68	0.04	72	0.04	70	0.04	55	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		21	0.32	55	0.00	36	0.10	31	0.40	68	0.04	28	0.13
Rubinstein 1952		49	0.22	68	0.00	55	0.07	50	0.07	82	0.03	53	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		10	0.38	20	0.00	16	0.12	14	0.69	55	0.07	17	0.22
Schilhawsky 1960		54	0.20	74	0.00	71	0.04	70	0.04	84	0.03	76	0.03
Shebanova 2002		76	0.15	60	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	84	0.04	78	0.03
Smith 1975		32	0.28	42	0.00	33	0.12	28	0.44	46	0.08	21	0.19
Sokolov 2002		62	0.19	87	0.00	66	0.05	58	0.05	82	0.03	54	0.04
Sztompka 1959		56	0.20	75	0.00	53	0.05	53	0.05	84	0.03	59	0.04
Tomsic 1995		44	0.24	88	0.00	34	0.09	37	0.28	71	0.04	35	0.11
Uninsky 1932		59	0.19	22	0.00	54	0.05	55	0.05	87	0.02	77	0.03
Uninsky 1971		28	0.29	43	0.00	31	0.09	30	0.42	77	0.03	36	0.11
Wasowski 1980		86	0.09	33	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.02	84	0.02
Zak 1937		72	0.17	76	0.00	48	0.06	52	0.06	83	0.03	57	0.04
Zak 1951		61	0.19	6	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.14	70	0.04	44	0.07
Average		5	0.44	17	0.00	5	0.27	5	0.84	59	0.05	19	0.20
Random 1		90	-0.01	84	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	35	0.24	45	0.07
Random 2		89	0.06	51	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	6	0.49	31	0.12
Random 3		91	-0.13	45	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.02	91	0.01

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).