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		30	0.56	60	0.00	32	0.05	27	0.21	65	0.04	33	0.09
Anderszewski 2003		34	0.55	22	0.00	25	0.08	21	0.27	49	0.06	19	0.13
Ashkenazy 1981		71	0.39	19	0.00	35	0.04	41	0.10	58	0.04	46	0.06
Bacha 2000		79	0.36	58	0.00	69	0.03	80	0.03	60	0.04	66	0.03
Badura 1965		72	0.38	48	0.00	49	0.04	62	0.04	75	0.04	61	0.04
Barbosa 1983		88	0.13	42	0.00	87	0.03	79	0.03	89	0.02	88	0.02
Biret 1990		40	0.52	33	0.00	37	0.04	40	0.10	79	0.03	56	0.05
Blet 2003		47	0.49	35	0.00	63	0.03	73	0.03	71	0.04	77	0.03
Block 1995		84	0.31	74	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	79	0.03	81	0.03
Blumental 1952		55	0.46	14	0.01	15	0.07	26	0.23	64	0.04	27	0.10
Boshniakovich 1969		36	0.54	36	0.00	41	0.04	33	0.13	47	0.07	29	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		54	0.46	30	0.00	62	0.04	60	0.04	67	0.04	57	0.04
Bunin 1987		67	0.41	40	0.00	47	0.04	61	0.04	49	0.07	55	0.05
Bunin 1987b		69	0.40	67	0.00	48	0.04	55	0.04	49	0.07	49	0.05
Chiu 1999		86	0.24	81	0.00	79	0.02	88	0.02	70	0.03	87	0.02
Cohen 1997		87	0.20	75	0.00	72	0.03	71	0.03	39	0.17	39	0.07
Cortot 1951		35	0.55	82	0.00	43	0.04	38	0.10	67	0.04	47	0.06
Csalog 1996		20	0.59	51	0.00	18	0.06	22	0.26	13	0.39	9	0.32
Czerny 1949		23	0.59	43	0.00	21	0.07	16	0.32	58	0.05	20	0.13
Czerny 1990		22	0.59	83	0.00	19	0.06	19	0.29	51	0.04	23	0.11
Duchoud 2007		80	0.36	72	0.00	31	0.05	31	0.14	55	0.05	36	0.08
Ezaki 2006		44	0.50	84	0.00	28	0.06	29	0.18	59	0.04	34	0.08
Falvay 1989		57	0.45	73	0.00	65	0.03	68	0.03	40	0.25	30	0.09
Farrell 1958		70	0.39	85	0.00	68	0.03	82	0.03	82	0.03	73	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		58	0.45	44	0.00	73	0.03	66	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.03
Fliere 1977		13	0.63	38	0.00	23	0.07	18	0.30	78	0.04	21	0.11
Fou 1978		49	0.48	16	0.00	36	0.04	37	0.11	82	0.03	41	0.06
Francois 1956		51	0.47	52	0.00	70	0.03	72	0.03	68	0.04	85	0.03
Friedman 1923		74	0.37	41	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	84	0.03	91	0.02
Friedman 1923b		73	0.37	24	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	82	0.03	82	0.03
Friedman 1930		62	0.43	23	0.00	77	0.03	70	0.03	66	0.04	79	0.03
Garcia 2007		37	0.54	86	0.00	42	0.05	36	0.11	81	0.03	45	0.06
Garcia 2007b		42	0.51	61	0.00	51	0.04	53	0.04	81	0.03	86	0.03
Gierzod 1998		14	0.63	28	0.00	20	0.06	14	0.33	50	0.06	17	0.14
Gornostaeva 1994		6	0.66	10	0.01	12	0.10	10	0.39	25	0.22	10	0.29
Groot 1988		83	0.33	49	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	88	0.02	90	0.02
Harasiewicz 1955		46	0.49	37	0.00	16	0.07	23	0.25	57	0.05	24	0.11
Hatto 1993		82	0.35	87	0.00	75	0.03	67	0.03	57	0.06	65	0.04
Hatto 1997		75	0.37	88	0.00	74	0.04	51	0.04	52	0.06	52	0.05
Horowitz 1949		59	0.44	45	0.00	66	0.03	76	0.03	71	0.04	75	0.03
Indjic 1988		78	0.36	89	0.00	76	0.04	57	0.04	55	0.06	50	0.05
Kapell 1951		5	0.70	76	0.00	11	0.12	8	0.48	52	0.05	14	0.15
Kissin 1993		12	0.63	29	0.00	13	0.10	12	0.34	84	0.03	26	0.10
Kushner 1989		19	0.59	31	0.00	39	0.04	43	0.09	76	0.04	42	0.06
Luisada 1991		64	0.42	47	0.00	60	0.05	49	0.05	88	0.02	67	0.03
Lushtak 2004		68	0.41	77	0.00	57	0.04	56	0.04	69	0.04	62	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		10	0.64	5	0.03	6	0.17	11	0.36	11	0.41	7	0.38
Magaloff 1978		21	0.59	15	0.01	14	0.07	24	0.25	38	0.19	11	0.22
Magin 1975		17	0.60	53	0.00	30	0.05	25	0.24	72	0.04	25	0.10
Michalowski 1933		25	0.58	54	0.00	34	0.05	30	0.15	65	0.05	32	0.09
Milkina 1970		11	0.64	25	0.00	22	0.06	20	0.29	83	0.03	31	0.09
Mohovich 1999		39	0.53	63	0.00	54	0.04	50	0.04	82	0.04	64	0.04
Moravec 1969		15	0.63	7	0.02	7	0.13	7	0.50	5	0.56	5	0.53
Morozova 2008		53	0.46	64	0.00	38	0.04	45	0.07	79	0.03	51	0.05
Neighaus 1950		61	0.44	46	0.00	67	0.03	75	0.03	75	0.04	84	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		31	0.56	55	0.00	46	0.04	59	0.04	84	0.03	72	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		50	0.48	18	0.00	44	0.04	42	0.09	65	0.04	44	0.06
Osinska 1989		26	0.58	34	0.00	33	0.05	35	0.12	85	0.03	40	0.06
Pachmann 1927		29	0.56	68	0.00	45	0.04	44	0.08	29	0.24	15	0.14
Paderewski 1930		38	0.54	56	0.00	50	0.04	64	0.04	81	0.03	76	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		56	0.46	69	0.00	56	0.04	63	0.04	82	0.03	69	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		85	0.27	59	0.00	88	0.03	74	0.03	86	0.03	71	0.03
Poblocka 1999		8	0.65	39	0.00	24	0.09	13	0.33	68	0.04	22	0.11
Rabcewiczowa 1932		16	0.62	8	0.01	10	0.10	15	0.33	36	0.14	12	0.21
Rachmaninoff 1923		9	0.64	3	0.05	5	0.30	5	0.62	16	0.35	6	0.47
Rangell 2001		60	0.44	62	0.00	55	0.04	58	0.04	81	0.03	83	0.03
Richter 1976		52	0.46	11	0.01	26	0.07	34	0.12	43	0.15	18	0.13
Rosen 1989		28	0.56	57	0.00	53	0.04	54	0.04	54	0.05	63	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931		3	0.85	2	0.07	3	0.37	3	0.82	4	0.83	4	0.82
Rosenthal 1931b		2	0.85	6	0.03	2	0.30	2	0.83	4	0.86	2	0.84
Rosenthal 1931c		1	0.88	1	0.62	1	0.61	1	0.86	4	0.86	1	0.86
Rosenthal 1931d		4	0.84	4	0.04	4	0.51	4	0.81	4	0.85	3	0.83
Rossi 2007		81	0.35	50	0.00	78	0.02	86	0.02	61	0.05	70	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		65	0.42	32	0.00	64	0.03	69	0.03	54	0.05	58	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		63	0.43	70	0.00	27	0.06	39	0.10	57	0.06	37	0.08
Rubinstein 1966		76	0.36	65	0.00	84	0.03	78	0.03	75	0.04	78	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		24	0.59	21	0.00	17	0.06	17	0.31	52	0.06	16	0.14
Shebanova 2002		33	0.56	78	0.00	52	0.04	52	0.04	49	0.05	60	0.04
Smith 1975		27	0.57	9	0.01	29	0.06	32	0.14	59	0.04	38	0.07
Sokolov 2002		18	0.60	13	0.01	9	0.11	9	0.44	26	0.24	8	0.32
Sztompka 1959		32	0.56	12	0.01	40	0.04	28	0.18	74	0.04	35	0.08
Tomsic 1995		77	0.36	90	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	59	0.06	74	0.03
Uninsky 1932		43	0.51	26	0.00	61	0.05	48	0.05	61	0.05	53	0.05
Uninsky 1971		48	0.48	79	0.00	71	0.04	65	0.04	70	0.04	59	0.04
Wasowski 1980		66	0.41	91	0.00	83	0.03	77	0.03	75	0.04	68	0.03
Zak 1937		41	0.51	66	0.00	58	0.05	47	0.05	52	0.05	48	0.05
Zak 1951		45	0.50	27	0.00	59	0.07	46	0.07	51	0.05	43	0.06
Average		7	0.66	17	0.00	8	0.11	6	0.54	49	0.06	13	0.18
Random 1		90	-0.13	71	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	9	0.47	28	0.10
Random 2		89	-0.12	20	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	33	0.14	54	0.05
Random 3		91	-0.26	80	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	70	0.03	89	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).