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		19	0.51	31	0.00	40	0.07	36	0.26	8	0.54	22	0.37
Anderszewski 2003		50	0.42	61	0.00	42	0.07	40	0.23	63	0.05	48	0.11
Ashkenazy 1981		57	0.40	88	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	50	0.05	79	0.04
Bacha 2000		74	0.35	77	0.00	75	0.03	83	0.03	55	0.04	82	0.03
Badura 1965		61	0.39	20	0.00	28	0.06	42	0.20	23	0.36	31	0.27
Barbosa 1983		37	0.45	69	0.00	34	0.05	35	0.27	56	0.07	42	0.14
Biret 1990		45	0.43	43	0.00	33	0.05	31	0.31	62	0.05	46	0.12
Blet 2003		75	0.35	83	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	75	0.03	86	0.03
Block 1995		70	0.36	65	0.00	31	0.05	38	0.25	35	0.26	32	0.25
Blumental 1952		32	0.46	10	0.01	19	0.09	18	0.47	33	0.35	18	0.41
Boshniakovich 1969		10	0.53	25	0.00	20	0.08	19	0.45	27	0.29	24	0.36
Brailowsky 1960		56	0.40	78	0.00	55	0.04	67	0.04	61	0.06	66	0.05
Bunin 1987		72	0.35	84	0.00	53	0.06	48	0.06	49	0.06	64	0.06
Bunin 1987b		68	0.36	70	0.00	52	0.04	55	0.04	40	0.13	58	0.07
Chiu 1999		31	0.47	35	0.00	38	0.08	29	0.32	7	0.49	20	0.40
Cohen 1997		76	0.34	39	0.00	73	0.04	62	0.04	39	0.11	60	0.07
Cortot 1951		88	0.18	79	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	82	0.02	91	0.02
Csalog 1996		35	0.46	33	0.00	29	0.07	33	0.29	36	0.19	35	0.23
Czerny 1949		59	0.40	56	0.00	72	0.04	65	0.04	63	0.05	77	0.04
Czerny 1990		39	0.45	19	0.01	59	0.03	76	0.03	78	0.03	88	0.03
Duchoud 2007		26	0.48	27	0.00	26	0.06	22	0.40	1	0.78	5	0.56
Ezaki 2006		15	0.52	26	0.00	24	0.06	25	0.35	50	0.06	40	0.14
Falvay 1989		6	0.56	8	0.02	9	0.21	6	0.64	28	0.47	7	0.55
Farrell 1958		67	0.36	66	0.00	62	0.03	75	0.03	64	0.04	84	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		46	0.43	32	0.00	44	0.08	45	0.19	20	0.51	29	0.31
Fliere 1977		3	0.60	13	0.01	2	0.15	4	0.68	11	0.53	2	0.60
Fou 1978		13	0.52	45	0.00	25	0.07	32	0.31	43	0.12	36	0.19
Francois 1956		66	0.37	57	0.00	58	0.03	74	0.03	39	0.19	57	0.08
Friedman 1923		71	0.35	75	0.00	70	0.06	46	0.06	33	0.28	43	0.13
Friedman 1923b		73	0.35	63	0.00	69	0.04	66	0.04	33	0.27	52	0.10
Friedman 1930		54	0.42	51	0.00	30	0.05	43	0.20	16	0.47	28	0.31
Garcia 2007		62	0.38	71	0.00	51	0.04	60	0.04	30	0.35	45	0.12
Garcia 2007b		53	0.42	80	0.00	49	0.05	49	0.05	45	0.11	61	0.07
Gierzod 1998		2	0.62	6	0.03	5	0.17	3	0.68	29	0.35	13	0.49
Gornostaeva 1994		14	0.52	41	0.00	18	0.09	15	0.49	22	0.41	16	0.45
Groot 1988		49	0.43	9	0.01	12	0.12	17	0.47	19	0.35	19	0.41
Harasiewicz 1955		28	0.47	48	0.00	45	0.10	44	0.19	56	0.05	53	0.10
Hatto 1993		18	0.52	36	0.00	15	0.18	12	0.58	25	0.41	14	0.49
Hatto 1997		12	0.53	23	0.00	14	0.13	10	0.58	25	0.42	12	0.49
Horowitz 1949		84	0.29	67	0.00	68	0.05	52	0.05	19	0.39	41	0.14
Indjic 1988		11	0.53	15	0.01	13	0.13	9	0.58	25	0.42	11	0.49
Kapell 1951		38	0.45	62	0.00	48	0.06	47	0.06	62	0.05	68	0.05
Kissin 1993		30	0.47	12	0.01	17	0.11	39	0.24	44	0.23	34	0.23
Kushner 1989		5	0.57	2	0.08	4	0.19	7	0.64	25	0.42	8	0.52
Luisada 1991		27	0.47	30	0.00	27	0.05	21	0.43	15	0.50	15	0.46
Lushtak 2004		44	0.44	49	0.00	39	0.06	37	0.26	56	0.05	49	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		34	0.46	38	0.00	41	0.07	34	0.28	66	0.04	47	0.11
Magaloff 1978		47	0.43	53	0.00	66	0.04	57	0.04	64	0.04	72	0.04
Magin 1975		7	0.55	7	0.03	7	0.17	13	0.55	21	0.47	9	0.51
Michalowski 1933		85	0.28	37	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	33	0.20	56	0.08
Milkina 1970		9	0.54	21	0.00	11	0.17	14	0.54	42	0.16	30	0.29
Mohovich 1999		23	0.50	3	0.06	3	0.18	5	0.65	16	0.53	3	0.59
Moravec 1969		29	0.47	58	0.00	35	0.06	28	0.33	39	0.17	33	0.24
Morozova 2008		63	0.38	76	0.00	65	0.04	63	0.04	48	0.08	63	0.06
Neighaus 1950		83	0.30	89	0.00	85	0.04	64	0.04	82	0.02	89	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.38	16	0.01	43	0.06	41	0.21	2	0.52	26	0.33
Ohlsson 1999		21	0.51	11	0.01	16	0.10	16	0.48	13	0.52	10	0.50
Osinska 1989		4	0.59	14	0.01	8	0.16	2	0.68	32	0.45	6	0.55
Pachmann 1927		65	0.38	28	0.00	76	0.03	81	0.03	32	0.31	50	0.10
Paderewski 1930		87	0.24	85	0.00	87	0.03	87	0.03	69	0.04	85	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		48	0.43	17	0.01	46	0.05	50	0.05	10	0.47	38	0.15
Pierdomenico 2008		40	0.44	68	0.00	71	0.04	68	0.04	31	0.34	44	0.12
Poblocka 1999		43	0.44	81	0.00	50	0.05	51	0.05	53	0.08	62	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		52	0.42	74	0.00	32	0.05	27	0.34	45	0.10	37	0.18
Rachmaninoff 1923		80	0.32	50	0.00	56	0.04	54	0.04	69	0.04	73	0.04
Rangell 2001		77	0.33	24	0.00	79	0.04	70	0.04	71	0.05	80	0.04
Richter 1976		41	0.44	40	0.00	61	0.03	77	0.03	51	0.05	74	0.04
Rosen 1989		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1930		79	0.32	47	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	47	0.06	78	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.32	72	0.00	84	0.04	56	0.04	52	0.05	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		78	0.32	90	0.00	80	0.03	86	0.03	49	0.05	81	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.36	52	0.00	67	0.05	53	0.05	53	0.07	65	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.30	59	0.00	82	0.04	58	0.04	48	0.07	70	0.05
Rossi 2007		58	0.40	29	0.00	74	0.04	73	0.04	57	0.05	71	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		55	0.41	46	0.00	60	0.03	78	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		22	0.50	42	0.00	23	0.06	30	0.31	46	0.07	39	0.15
Rubinstein 1966		25	0.48	82	0.00	47	0.04	59	0.04	51	0.07	69	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		33	0.46	73	0.00	54	0.04	71	0.04	39	0.23	51	0.10
Shebanova 2002		16	0.52	5	0.03	10	0.22	11	0.58	10	0.57	4	0.57
Smith 1975		36	0.45	34	0.00	63	0.04	69	0.04	51	0.07	67	0.05
Sokolov 2002		60	0.39	55	0.00	57	0.04	72	0.04	42	0.16	55	0.08
Sztompka 1959		51	0.42	60	0.00	64	0.04	61	0.04	61	0.05	75	0.04
Tomsic 1995		8	0.55	4	0.05	6	0.17	8	0.62	3	0.64	1	0.63
Uninsky 1932		86	0.24	86	0.00	83	0.03	79	0.03	75	0.03	87	0.03
Uninsky 1971		24	0.50	87	0.00	37	0.08	24	0.36	36	0.31	27	0.33
Wasowski 1980		42	0.44	54	0.00	22	0.07	26	0.34	34	0.32	25	0.33
Zak 1937		20	0.51	22	0.00	36	0.06	23	0.36	34	0.37	23	0.36
Zak 1951		17	0.52	64	0.00	21	0.08	20	0.43	24	0.41	17	0.42
Average		1	0.68	1	0.52	1	0.52	1	0.81	41	0.20	21	0.40
Random 1		90	-0.01	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	12	0.44	54	0.09
Random 2		89	0.01	18	0.01	90	0.02	90	0.02	26	0.27	59	0.07
Random 3		91	-0.06	44	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	51	0.04	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).