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		13	0.77	15	0.01	8	0.11	6	0.57	25	0.36	10	0.45
Anderszewski 2003		26	0.70	23	0.01	23	0.08	27	0.27	32	0.24	30	0.25
Ashkenazy 1981		46	0.64	42	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.11	45	0.08	65	0.09
Bacha 2000		36	0.67	10	0.02	18	0.12	17	0.40	5	0.47	14	0.43
Badura 1965		72	0.57	47	0.00	73	0.05	56	0.05	39	0.24	50	0.11
Barbosa 1983		84	0.47	53	0.00	68	0.04	61	0.04	21	0.25	54	0.10
Biret 1990		29	0.69	75	0.00	32	0.07	30	0.21	19	0.35	28	0.27
Blet 2003		20	0.72	28	0.00	25	0.05	26	0.27	4	0.47	20	0.36
Block 1995		69	0.57	16	0.01	44	0.04	44	0.07	25	0.22	45	0.12
Blumental 1952		49	0.63	41	0.00	19	0.13	22	0.32	14	0.27	25	0.29
Boshniakovich 1969		37	0.67	63	0.00	41	0.04	41	0.11	49	0.07	64	0.09
Brailowsky 1960		38	0.66	59	0.00	35	0.08	33	0.19	15	0.39	27	0.27
Bunin 1987		87	0.33	90	0.00	88	0.04	74	0.04	63	0.05	84	0.04
Bunin 1987b		88	0.33	82	0.00	87	0.04	66	0.04	74	0.03	86	0.03
Chiu 1999		71	0.57	50	0.00	46	0.04	72	0.04	29	0.23	52	0.10
Cohen 1997		86	0.39	39	0.00	76	0.03	83	0.03	16	0.35	55	0.10
Cortot 1951		79	0.55	83	0.00	79	0.02	88	0.02	72	0.04	89	0.03
Csalog 1996		60	0.60	32	0.00	69	0.05	53	0.05	16	0.37	41	0.14
Czerny 1949		59	0.60	77	0.00	57	0.04	60	0.04	64	0.04	82	0.04
Czerny 1990		17	0.75	43	0.00	13	0.09	11	0.47	12	0.43	11	0.45
Duchoud 2007		81	0.54	27	0.00	48	0.04	71	0.04	39	0.13	72	0.07
Ezaki 2006		22	0.71	9	0.02	27	0.06	29	0.23	28	0.25	31	0.24
Falvay 1989		63	0.59	31	0.00	74	0.05	55	0.05	23	0.44	37	0.15
Farrell 1958		50	0.62	84	0.00	49	0.04	69	0.04	36	0.20	59	0.09
Ferenczy 1958		34	0.67	13	0.01	24	0.08	32	0.20	9	0.46	23	0.30
Fliere 1977		12	0.77	24	0.01	17	0.14	12	0.47	34	0.20	22	0.31
Fou 1978		16	0.75	37	0.00	12	0.09	10	0.48	6	0.50	7	0.49
Francois 1956		27	0.69	48	0.00	30	0.05	23	0.29	8	0.51	18	0.38
Friedman 1923		42	0.66	67	0.00	52	0.06	49	0.06	34	0.36	40	0.15
Friedman 1923b		43	0.65	29	0.00	53	0.05	52	0.05	35	0.35	44	0.13
Friedman 1930		44	0.65	35	0.00	59	0.04	76	0.04	36	0.32	49	0.11
Garcia 2007		23	0.71	78	0.00	34	0.06	34	0.18	26	0.33	33	0.24
Garcia 2007b		14	0.76	20	0.01	14	0.11	18	0.39	17	0.45	16	0.42
Gierzod 1998		11	0.77	7	0.04	10	0.12	8	0.55	22	0.39	9	0.46
Gornostaeva 1994		15	0.75	11	0.01	16	0.14	14	0.43	8	0.45	13	0.44
Groot 1988		64	0.59	21	0.01	33	0.06	39	0.12	29	0.30	36	0.19
Harasiewicz 1955		32	0.67	34	0.00	28	0.05	36	0.17	52	0.06	57	0.10
Hatto 1993		58	0.61	73	0.00	55	0.06	50	0.06	40	0.14	66	0.09
Hatto 1997		56	0.61	57	0.00	56	0.06	51	0.06	42	0.15	63	0.09
Horowitz 1949		82	0.53	64	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	49	0.08	76	0.05
Indjic 1988		55	0.62	22	0.01	54	0.06	48	0.06	41	0.16	53	0.10
Kapell 1951		19	0.74	17	0.01	22	0.07	20	0.35	31	0.15	34	0.23
Kissin 1993		18	0.74	46	0.00	21	0.08	19	0.38	26	0.33	21	0.35
Kushner 1989		9	0.77	38	0.00	11	0.09	13	0.46	17	0.47	8	0.46
Luisada 1991		5	0.80	1	0.22	1	0.22	2	0.66	2	0.67	1	0.66
Lushtak 2004		66	0.58	56	0.00	66	0.04	75	0.04	47	0.08	75	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		78	0.56	85	0.00	77	0.03	86	0.03	70	0.03	87	0.03
Magaloff 1978		57	0.61	45	0.00	70	0.06	47	0.06	37	0.21	46	0.11
Magin 1975		3	0.80	5	0.07	4	0.15	5	0.58	3	0.58	4	0.58
Michalowski 1933		30	0.68	76	0.00	42	0.04	42	0.08	39	0.15	48	0.11
Milkina 1970		2	0.82	3	0.08	3	0.22	3	0.64	2	0.64	3	0.64
Mohovich 1999		4	0.80	12	0.01	7	0.16	4	0.60	3	0.72	2	0.66
Moravec 1969		83	0.52	61	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	34	0.23	70	0.07
Morozova 2008		24	0.71	6	0.05	20	0.09	21	0.35	16	0.41	17	0.38
Neighaus 1950		39	0.66	79	0.00	50	0.04	62	0.04	56	0.05	85	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		53	0.62	62	0.00	64	0.04	68	0.04	47	0.05	81	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		25	0.70	44	0.00	29	0.07	24	0.28	29	0.30	24	0.29
Osinska 1989		7	0.78	19	0.01	6	0.12	7	0.55	10	0.54	5	0.54
Pachmann 1927		80	0.55	74	0.00	75	0.03	82	0.03	26	0.26	61	0.09
Paderewski 1930		45	0.64	86	0.00	63	0.04	63	0.04	36	0.15	69	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		40	0.66	54	0.00	31	0.06	28	0.26	25	0.27	29	0.26
Pierdomenico 2008		62	0.59	68	0.00	72	0.06	46	0.06	21	0.37	38	0.15
Poblocka 1999		41	0.66	18	0.01	43	0.04	45	0.07	58	0.05	73	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		33	0.67	87	0.00	38	0.06	38	0.14	18	0.31	35	0.21
Rachmaninoff 1923		47	0.63	80	0.00	45	0.04	43	0.08	54	0.04	74	0.06
Rangell 2001		73	0.57	55	0.00	60	0.03	81	0.03	19	0.36	56	0.10
Richter 1976		85	0.41	14	0.01	86	0.04	70	0.04	53	0.06	77	0.05
Rosen 1989		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1930		75	0.56	81	0.00	85	0.05	54	0.05	54	0.04	83	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		68	0.58	49	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	25	0.29	62	0.09
Rosenthal 1931b		70	0.57	69	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	25	0.27	67	0.09
Rosenthal 1931c		77	0.56	88	0.00	84	0.04	67	0.04	29	0.23	58	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		67	0.58	70	0.00	83	0.04	64	0.04	24	0.29	51	0.11
Rossi 2007		52	0.62	33	0.00	47	0.04	73	0.04	13	0.44	42	0.13
Rubinstein 1939		51	0.62	52	0.00	62	0.03	78	0.03	12	0.38	47	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		74	0.57	36	0.00	58	0.05	57	0.05	15	0.46	39	0.15
Rubinstein 1966		48	0.63	8	0.02	39	0.06	37	0.14	16	0.41	32	0.24
Schilhawsky 1960		76	0.56	71	0.00	71	0.05	58	0.05	55	0.05	79	0.05
Shebanova 2002		8	0.78	25	0.01	9	0.12	9	0.51	21	0.36	15	0.43
Smith 1975		6	0.78	4	0.08	5	0.15	16	0.41	6	0.47	12	0.44
Sokolov 2002		61	0.59	60	0.00	65	0.04	77	0.04	51	0.05	80	0.04
Sztompka 1959		10	0.77	65	0.00	15	0.12	15	0.43	27	0.31	19	0.37
Tomsic 1995		65	0.58	30	0.00	61	0.03	79	0.03	8	0.56	43	0.13
Uninsky 1932		35	0.67	40	0.00	51	0.05	59	0.05	46	0.10	71	0.07
Uninsky 1971		54	0.62	89	0.00	67	0.04	65	0.04	52	0.07	78	0.05
Wasowski 1980		21	0.72	72	0.00	26	0.05	25	0.28	19	0.28	26	0.28
Zak 1937		28	0.69	51	0.00	37	0.06	35	0.18	56	0.04	68	0.08
Zak 1951		31	0.68	26	0.00	36	0.07	31	0.20	60	0.04	60	0.09
Average		1	0.84	2	0.21	2	0.27	1	0.67	18	0.38	6	0.50
Random 1		91	-0.35	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	-0.13	58	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	47	0.04	88	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.16	66	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	53	0.05	90	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).