Rosenthal 1931b

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		41	0.48	61	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	86	0.02	60	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		37	0.50	7	0.00	42	0.06	38	0.14	81	0.03	40	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		64	0.38	49	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.10	80	0.03	46	0.05
Bacha 2000		48	0.45	17	0.00	26	0.07	27	0.23	51	0.05	21	0.11
Badura 1965		85	0.18	22	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	88	0.02	89	0.02
Barbosa 1983		88	0.12	42	0.00	55	0.04	75	0.04	88	0.02	70	0.03
Biret 1990		19	0.55	15	0.00	23	0.06	22	0.31	83	0.03	27	0.10
Blet 2003		54	0.42	50	0.00	66	0.05	63	0.05	78	0.03	56	0.04
Block 1995		78	0.27	26	0.00	73	0.05	60	0.05	88	0.02	76	0.03
Blumental 1952		31	0.52	5	0.00	12	0.14	13	0.50	47	0.06	12	0.17
Boshniakovich 1969		63	0.38	18	0.00	79	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.03	77	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		28	0.53	35	0.00	21	0.06	20	0.34	48	0.05	16	0.13
Bunin 1987		86	0.18	68	0.00	88	0.04	78	0.04	84	0.02	78	0.03
Bunin 1987b		87	0.17	62	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	87	0.02	85	0.02
Chiu 1999		82	0.24	69	0.00	52	0.04	72	0.04	89	0.02	64	0.03
Cohen 1997		79	0.25	29	0.00	25	0.06	33	0.17	24	0.29	11	0.22
Cortot 1951		44	0.47	70	0.00	64	0.06	51	0.06	65	0.04	47	0.05
Csalog 1996		32	0.52	71	0.00	37	0.06	39	0.13	43	0.11	18	0.12
Czerny 1949		47	0.45	63	0.00	60	0.04	74	0.04	82	0.03	73	0.03
Czerny 1990		13	0.61	51	0.00	9	0.14	12	0.50	73	0.03	19	0.12
Duchoud 2007		71	0.33	72	0.00	56	0.04	79	0.04	87	0.02	74	0.03
Ezaki 2006		38	0.49	52	0.00	18	0.10	17	0.42	79	0.03	20	0.11
Falvay 1989		25	0.53	73	0.00	16	0.15	18	0.41	22	0.44	7	0.42
Farrell 1958		52	0.42	74	0.00	27	0.09	23	0.28	72	0.04	25	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		68	0.35	53	0.00	74	0.06	48	0.06	78	0.03	58	0.04
Fliere 1977		23	0.54	9	0.00	35	0.05	34	0.17	77	0.04	35	0.08
Fou 1978		50	0.44	43	0.00	28	0.06	28	0.21	58	0.04	28	0.09
Francois 1956		33	0.51	75	0.00	40	0.05	42	0.10	79	0.03	48	0.05
Friedman 1923		75	0.30	76	0.00	78	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.03	84	0.03
Friedman 1923b		76	0.30	10	0.00	77	0.04	77	0.04	81	0.03	79	0.03
Friedman 1930		66	0.37	77	0.00	76	0.04	73	0.04	82	0.03	72	0.03
Garcia 2007		40	0.48	78	0.00	47	0.05	53	0.05	85	0.02	75	0.03
Garcia 2007b		45	0.46	79	0.00	61	0.05	64	0.05	84	0.03	62	0.04
Gierzod 1998		20	0.55	80	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.12	88	0.02	44	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		5	0.67	20	0.00	8	0.18	9	0.54	20	0.28	9	0.39
Groot 1988		67	0.36	36	0.00	51	0.05	61	0.05	86	0.03	61	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		70	0.34	37	0.00	62	0.05	56	0.05	88	0.02	83	0.03
Hatto 1993		83	0.23	23	0.00	81	0.04	68	0.04	88	0.02	82	0.03
Hatto 1997		80	0.25	27	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	88	0.02	87	0.02
Horowitz 1949		74	0.31	44	0.00	83	0.04	80	0.04	82	0.03	65	0.03
Indjic 1988		81	0.25	45	0.00	82	0.05	59	0.05	88	0.02	69	0.03
Kapell 1951		11	0.61	38	0.00	31	0.06	26	0.26	76	0.03	29	0.09
Kissin 1993		26	0.53	81	0.00	24	0.07	24	0.27	74	0.03	32	0.09
Kushner 1989		15	0.58	11	0.00	33	0.05	35	0.17	64	0.04	37	0.08
Luisada 1991		56	0.41	54	0.00	46	0.05	62	0.05	71	0.04	49	0.04
Lushtak 2004		72	0.33	82	0.00	49	0.06	47	0.06	70	0.04	45	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		21	0.54	39	0.00	19	0.08	31	0.18	51	0.05	30	0.09
Magaloff 1978		10	0.62	12	0.00	15	0.12	14	0.48	32	0.23	10	0.33
Magin 1975		16	0.57	8	0.00	20	0.09	19	0.39	80	0.03	24	0.11
Michalowski 1933		35	0.51	13	0.00	58	0.04	66	0.04	80	0.03	67	0.03
Milkina 1970		7	0.66	30	0.00	11	0.13	11	0.51	60	0.04	15	0.14
Mohovich 1999		27	0.53	83	0.00	29	0.06	30	0.19	83	0.04	34	0.09
Moravec 1969		6	0.67	40	0.00	5	0.37	6	0.59	7	0.55	5	0.57
Morozova 2008		61	0.39	31	0.00	53	0.04	71	0.04	85	0.03	71	0.03
Neighaus 1950		62	0.39	64	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		24	0.54	65	0.00	17	0.09	16	0.44	85	0.03	23	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		51	0.43	84	0.00	59	0.06	49	0.06	71	0.04	41	0.05
Osinska 1989		18	0.57	85	0.00	32	0.06	29	0.21	81	0.03	36	0.08
Pachmann 1927		46	0.45	55	0.00	69	0.05	54	0.05	64	0.03	55	0.04
Paderewski 1930		36	0.50	56	0.00	54	0.04	67	0.04	86	0.03	66	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		53	0.42	66	0.00	36	0.05	37	0.15	87	0.03	38	0.07
Pierdomenico 2008		73	0.33	46	0.00	72	0.04	76	0.04	73	0.04	51	0.04
Poblocka 1999		42	0.47	86	0.00	63	0.05	58	0.05	77	0.03	50	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		8	0.65	21	0.00	6	0.24	7	0.58	15	0.32	6	0.43
Rachmaninoff 1923		14	0.60	19	0.00	7	0.21	5	0.59	83	0.03	17	0.13
Rangell 2001		43	0.47	57	0.00	57	0.04	69	0.04	72	0.03	80	0.03
Richter 1976		84	0.20	58	0.00	86	0.03	88	0.03	88	0.01	86	0.02
Rosen 1989		17	0.57	67	0.00	30	0.06	25	0.27	84	0.03	33	0.09
Rosenthal 1930		4	0.85	4	0.00	4	0.61	4	0.86	2	0.83	4	0.84
Rosenthal 1931		1	0.99	1	0.70	1	0.70	2	0.98	1	0.98	1	0.98
Rosenthal 1931b		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931c		3	0.95	3	0.03	3	0.87	3	0.95	1	0.95	3	0.95
Rosenthal 1931d		2	0.98	2	0.25	2	0.90	1	0.98	1	0.98	2	0.98
Rossi 2007		58	0.41	6	0.00	38	0.05	40	0.13	46	0.10	22	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		39	0.48	87	0.00	22	0.06	21	0.34	46	0.07	14	0.15
Rubinstein 1952		34	0.51	32	0.00	13	0.15	15	0.44	30	0.36	8	0.40
Rubinstein 1966		49	0.44	24	0.00	48	0.06	52	0.06	59	0.05	42	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		57	0.41	88	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.09	87	0.02	57	0.04
Shebanova 2002		30	0.52	41	0.00	50	0.05	55	0.05	87	0.03	59	0.04
Smith 1975		9	0.62	16	0.00	10	0.12	8	0.55	61	0.04	13	0.15
Sokolov 2002		29	0.52	25	0.00	34	0.05	36	0.16	71	0.03	39	0.07
Sztompka 1959		22	0.54	59	0.00	39	0.06	32	0.18	64	0.05	31	0.09
Tomsic 1995		65	0.37	89	0.00	68	0.05	57	0.05	77	0.03	54	0.04
Uninsky 1932		59	0.40	33	0.00	70	0.07	46	0.07	74	0.04	43	0.05
Uninsky 1971		77	0.30	60	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	87	0.03	68	0.03
Wasowski 1980		69	0.34	28	0.00	71	0.04	70	0.04	87	0.02	63	0.03
Zak 1937		55	0.42	47	0.00	65	0.05	65	0.05	76	0.03	52	0.04
Zak 1951		60	0.39	14	0.00	67	0.06	50	0.06	75	0.03	53	0.04
Average		12	0.61	48	0.00	14	0.12	10	0.52	84	0.02	26	0.10
Random 1		90	-0.22	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	51	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.12	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	55	0.03	88	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.24	34	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	76	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).