Rosenthal 1931d

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	0.35	19	0.00	10	0.22	9	0.70	17	0.50	8	0.59
Anderszewski 2003		41	0.23	34	0.00	34	0.06	33	0.23	66	0.04	29	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		47	0.22	25	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.14	74	0.05	39	0.08
Bacha 2000		24	0.26	73	0.00	24	0.09	27	0.30	53	0.05	23	0.12
Badura 1965		52	0.21	80	0.00	51	0.05	58	0.05	60	0.04	60	0.04
Barbosa 1983		54	0.20	81	0.00	67	0.04	66	0.04	86	0.02	75	0.03
Biret 1990		39	0.24	54	0.00	32	0.06	40	0.15	74	0.04	40	0.08
Blet 2003		48	0.22	35	0.00	33	0.06	32	0.24	69	0.04	30	0.10
Block 1995		59	0.20	67	0.00	53	0.05	61	0.05	79	0.03	61	0.04
Blumental 1952		14	0.31	10	0.00	11	0.29	12	0.57	39	0.20	11	0.34
Boshniakovich 1969		60	0.20	68	0.00	68	0.04	63	0.04	86	0.04	62	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		6	0.39	55	0.00	8	0.24	7	0.75	19	0.58	6	0.66
Bunin 1987		33	0.24	57	0.00	55	0.06	47	0.06	74	0.03	63	0.04
Bunin 1987b		34	0.24	9	0.00	50	0.05	55	0.05	71	0.04	54	0.04
Chiu 1999		67	0.19	88	0.00	56	0.05	51	0.05	83	0.03	52	0.04
Cohen 1997		28	0.26	69	0.00	20	0.09	19	0.43	41	0.22	12	0.31
Cortot 1951		26	0.26	22	0.00	27	0.10	26	0.30	41	0.15	14	0.21
Csalog 1996		66	0.19	62	0.00	64	0.04	73	0.04	81	0.03	76	0.03
Czerny 1949		44	0.22	32	0.00	41	0.06	43	0.13	59	0.05	38	0.08
Czerny 1990		63	0.19	44	0.00	58	0.04	64	0.04	58	0.05	64	0.04
Duchoud 2007		86	0.10	82	0.00	85	0.03	79	0.03	80	0.04	79	0.03
Ezaki 2006		9	0.36	12	0.00	9	0.20	10	0.69	38	0.35	10	0.49
Falvay 1989		15	0.31	26	0.00	17	0.18	16	0.50	58	0.05	18	0.16
Farrell 1958		70	0.18	50	0.00	70	0.03	75	0.03	88	0.02	87	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		8	0.36	27	0.00	12	0.23	11	0.69	12	0.71	5	0.70
Fliere 1977		35	0.24	45	0.00	35	0.09	31	0.26	88	0.03	32	0.09
Fou 1978		20	0.28	74	0.00	19	0.09	20	0.43	79	0.03	26	0.11
Francois 1956		40	0.23	39	0.00	26	0.08	25	0.31	42	0.15	13	0.22
Friedman 1923		64	0.19	63	0.00	65	0.04	70	0.04	80	0.03	84	0.03
Friedman 1923b		65	0.19	83	0.00	66	0.06	49	0.06	78	0.04	49	0.05
Friedman 1930		78	0.15	84	0.00	69	0.06	48	0.06	77	0.03	59	0.04
Garcia 2007		69	0.18	40	0.00	78	0.04	71	0.04	82	0.03	80	0.03
Garcia 2007b		79	0.15	20	0.00	72	0.04	72	0.04	85	0.02	83	0.03
Gierzod 1998		12	0.33	46	0.00	13	0.13	18	0.47	49	0.07	15	0.18
Gornostaeva 1994		45	0.22	5	0.00	28	0.08	28	0.30	84	0.03	36	0.09
Groot 1988		17	0.29	51	0.00	15	0.13	14	0.54	71	0.04	21	0.15
Harasiewicz 1955		53	0.21	75	0.00	36	0.07	36	0.17	88	0.02	46	0.06
Hatto 1993		43	0.23	58	0.00	52	0.05	50	0.05	85	0.03	65	0.04
Hatto 1997		19	0.28	42	0.00	23	0.09	23	0.38	70	0.04	25	0.12
Horowitz 1949		61	0.19	43	0.00	61	0.05	59	0.05	62	0.04	57	0.04
Indjic 1988		50	0.22	70	0.00	57	0.04	67	0.04	87	0.02	74	0.03
Kapell 1951		68	0.18	52	0.00	76	0.04	68	0.04	86	0.03	70	0.03
Kissin 1993		87	0.09	59	0.00	90	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.02	90	0.02
Kushner 1989		31	0.25	71	0.00	46	0.06	46	0.06	77	0.04	48	0.05
Luisada 1991		30	0.25	28	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	74	0.04	41	0.07
Lushtak 2004		38	0.24	29	0.00	40	0.07	38	0.16	81	0.03	44	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		29	0.26	47	0.00	31	0.07	29	0.29	85	0.03	34	0.09
Magaloff 1978		27	0.26	37	0.00	29	0.07	30	0.27	80	0.03	33	0.09
Magin 1975		77	0.16	30	0.00	79	0.03	78	0.03	84	0.03	69	0.03
Michalowski 1933		81	0.13	21	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	78	0.03	73	0.03
Milkina 1970		37	0.24	23	0.00	38	0.06	37	0.17	79	0.03	42	0.07
Mohovich 1999		16	0.30	16	0.00	16	0.16	13	0.56	62	0.04	20	0.15
Moravec 1969		13	0.33	76	0.00	14	0.20	15	0.52	60	0.05	17	0.16
Morozova 2008		32	0.25	24	0.00	39	0.05	39	0.15	80	0.03	43	0.07
Neighaus 1950		71	0.18	17	0.00	73	0.04	69	0.04	73	0.03	82	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		62	0.19	72	0.00	37	0.07	35	0.17	75	0.04	37	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		72	0.18	85	0.00	63	0.05	62	0.05	84	0.03	58	0.04
Osinska 1989		46	0.22	18	0.00	59	0.05	52	0.05	84	0.03	50	0.04
Pachmann 1927		88	0.09	89	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	85	0.03	89	0.02
Paderewski 1930		82	0.12	60	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	80	0.03	71	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		74	0.17	64	0.00	71	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.03	67	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		75	0.17	11	0.00	81	0.02	86	0.02	85	0.03	86	0.02
Poblocka 1999		57	0.20	90	0.00	49	0.05	54	0.05	83	0.03	51	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		7	0.37	7	0.00	6	0.31	6	0.76	17	0.55	7	0.65
Rachmaninoff 1923		11	0.35	6	0.00	7	0.22	8	0.74	22	0.41	9	0.55
Rangell 2001		56	0.20	13	0.00	48	0.05	56	0.05	85	0.02	81	0.03
Richter 1976		83	0.11	86	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	87	0.03	88	0.02
Rosen 1989		18	0.28	65	0.00	22	0.09	21	0.42	81	0.03	28	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		4	0.59	4	0.00	4	0.81	4	0.91	4	0.88	4	0.89
Rosenthal 1931		2	0.76	2	0.08	2	0.87	2	0.98	2	0.97	2	0.97
Rosenthal 1931b		1	0.83	1	0.89	1	0.88	1	0.99	2	0.99	1	0.99
Rosenthal 1931c		3	0.71	3	0.02	3	0.88	3	0.97	2	0.95	3	0.96
Rosenthal 1931d		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rossi 2007		85	0.10	33	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	75	0.03	68	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		21	0.28	8	0.00	25	0.10	24	0.34	46	0.06	22	0.14
Rubinstein 1952		49	0.22	15	0.00	54	0.05	60	0.05	87	0.03	66	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		23	0.26	38	0.00	44	0.06	42	0.13	75	0.03	45	0.06
Schilhawsky 1960		36	0.24	36	0.00	30	0.06	34	0.23	50	0.06	24	0.12
Shebanova 2002		80	0.13	91	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	88	0.03	78	0.03
Smith 1975		25	0.26	31	0.00	18	0.11	17	0.49	51	0.06	16	0.17
Sokolov 2002		58	0.20	14	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.12	86	0.02	47	0.05
Sztompka 1959		76	0.17	87	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.03	72	0.03
Tomsic 1995		55	0.20	61	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	81	0.04	56	0.04
Uninsky 1932		73	0.17	48	0.00	75	0.04	74	0.04	77	0.03	77	0.03
Uninsky 1971		22	0.27	53	0.00	21	0.09	22	0.41	84	0.03	27	0.11
Wasowski 1980		84	0.11	56	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.03	85	0.02
Zak 1937		51	0.22	77	0.00	60	0.05	57	0.05	80	0.04	53	0.04
Zak 1951		42	0.23	78	0.00	47	0.05	53	0.05	78	0.04	55	0.04
Average		5	0.43	49	0.00	5	0.39	5	0.83	87	0.03	19	0.16
Random 1		90	0.02	66	0.00	87	0.02	90	0.02	2	0.52	31	0.10
Random 2		89	0.07	79	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	9	0.45	35	0.09
Random 3		91	-0.09	41	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	80	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).