Rosenthal 1931

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		37	0.36	53	0.00	52	0.04	74	0.04	45	0.10	46	0.06
Anderszewski 2003		24	0.39	30	0.00	23	0.07	17	0.45	56	0.06	17	0.16
Ashkenazy 1981		60	0.30	75	0.00	57	0.04	70	0.04	59	0.03	77	0.03
Bacha 2000		66	0.28	40	0.00	61	0.05	54	0.05	63	0.03	52	0.04
Badura 1965		51	0.32	57	0.00	51	0.04	75	0.04	66	0.04	66	0.04
Barbosa 1983		42	0.34	54	0.00	39	0.08	37	0.18	70	0.04	38	0.08
Biret 1990		31	0.37	44	0.00	34	0.07	33	0.25	66	0.04	34	0.10
Blet 2003		34	0.37	22	0.00	32	0.06	34	0.25	45	0.10	18	0.16
Block 1995		26	0.39	10	0.00	13	0.22	10	0.53	32	0.27	8	0.38
Blumental 1952		22	0.40	37	0.00	12	0.15	14	0.48	54	0.06	15	0.17
Boshniakovich 1969		55	0.31	67	0.00	49	0.04	68	0.04	66	0.04	68	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		6	0.49	12	0.00	7	0.33	5	0.71	17	0.54	5	0.62
Bunin 1987		44	0.33	38	0.00	48	0.04	67	0.04	71	0.04	69	0.04
Bunin 1987b		53	0.32	76	0.00	56	0.05	56	0.05	61	0.05	50	0.05
Chiu 1999		73	0.25	68	0.00	69	0.06	47	0.06	72	0.03	55	0.04
Cohen 1997		68	0.27	69	0.00	40	0.05	44	0.11	77	0.03	47	0.06
Cortot 1951		82	0.18	77	0.00	86	0.02	82	0.02	78	0.03	89	0.02
Csalog 1996		15	0.41	9	0.00	14	0.12	13	0.50	43	0.13	11	0.25
Czerny 1949		71	0.26	58	0.00	74	0.05	55	0.05	74	0.03	65	0.04
Czerny 1990		30	0.38	78	0.00	28	0.11	23	0.41	65	0.04	29	0.13
Duchoud 2007		87	0.13	79	0.00	81	0.02	85	0.02	80	0.02	85	0.02
Ezaki 2006		23	0.40	39	0.00	29	0.07	29	0.35	70	0.05	26	0.13
Falvay 1989		8	0.46	5	0.01	11	0.14	11	0.52	68	0.04	22	0.14
Farrell 1958		46	0.32	13	0.00	44	0.04	43	0.11	78	0.04	41	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		25	0.39	59	0.00	22	0.08	20	0.42	38	0.22	10	0.30
Fliere 1977		14	0.41	41	0.00	18	0.08	21	0.42	64	0.05	20	0.14
Fou 1978		10	0.44	16	0.00	19	0.10	15	0.47	65	0.04	23	0.14
Francois 1956		86	0.15	80	0.00	80	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02	90	0.02
Friedman 1923		67	0.27	70	0.00	53	0.04	76	0.04	68	0.04	71	0.04
Friedman 1923b		64	0.28	81	0.00	47	0.04	62	0.04	75	0.04	70	0.04
Friedman 1930		72	0.25	45	0.00	54	0.04	64	0.04	60	0.05	63	0.04
Garcia 2007		85	0.16	60	0.00	82	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.02
Garcia 2007b		77	0.22	47	0.00	72	0.04	69	0.04	80	0.03	80	0.03
Gierzod 1998		19	0.40	82	0.00	16	0.11	26	0.39	80	0.03	32	0.11
Gornostaeva 1994		47	0.32	83	0.00	55	0.04	63	0.04	89	0.02	78	0.03
Groot 1988		28	0.38	18	0.00	15	0.13	16	0.47	50	0.06	16	0.17
Harasiewicz 1955		33	0.37	20	0.00	33	0.07	30	0.34	83	0.03	35	0.10
Hatto 1993		17	0.41	84	0.00	20	0.08	19	0.44	62	0.04	30	0.13
Hatto 1997		21	0.40	85	0.00	26	0.09	24	0.40	60	0.04	28	0.13
Horowitz 1949		45	0.32	42	0.00	43	0.05	45	0.10	33	0.24	19	0.15
Indjic 1988		20	0.40	28	0.00	25	0.07	22	0.41	78	0.03	31	0.11
Kapell 1951		36	0.36	17	0.00	45	0.06	42	0.12	70	0.04	42	0.07
Kissin 1993		69	0.26	71	0.00	73	0.04	72	0.04	85	0.03	75	0.03
Kushner 1989		32	0.37	26	0.00	36	0.07	36	0.21	81	0.03	37	0.08
Luisada 1991		39	0.35	8	0.00	64	0.07	46	0.07	83	0.03	48	0.05
Lushtak 2004		38	0.36	31	0.00	24	0.07	25	0.39	54	0.05	24	0.14
Malcuzynski 1961		56	0.31	49	0.00	38	0.06	41	0.13	76	0.03	45	0.06
Magaloff 1978		16	0.41	23	0.00	27	0.09	28	0.37	57	0.05	21	0.14
Magin 1975		11	0.43	50	0.00	17	0.09	18	0.45	66	0.04	27	0.13
Michalowski 1933		84	0.17	86	0.00	87	0.02	83	0.02	87	0.02	84	0.02
Milkina 1970		41	0.34	72	0.00	62	0.04	60	0.04	85	0.03	73	0.03
Mohovich 1999		18	0.40	14	0.00	21	0.08	27	0.39	54	0.05	25	0.14
Moravec 1969		7	0.47	35	0.00	5	0.20	9	0.55	23	0.41	7	0.47
Morozova 2008		52	0.32	87	0.00	58	0.04	66	0.04	67	0.05	62	0.04
Neighaus 1950		81	0.19	61	0.00	77	0.04	77	0.04	78	0.03	79	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		61	0.29	34	0.00	30	0.07	35	0.21	35	0.17	13	0.19
Ohlsson 1999		58	0.31	24	0.00	65	0.05	50	0.05	80	0.03	61	0.04
Osinska 1989		35	0.37	11	0.00	35	0.09	32	0.27	79	0.03	36	0.09
Pachmann 1927		80	0.20	88	0.00	84	0.03	80	0.03	81	0.02	83	0.02
Paderewski 1930		88	0.13	89	0.00	88	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.03	74	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		74	0.24	25	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	84	0.02	81	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		78	0.21	73	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	86	0.02	82	0.02
Poblocka 1999		12	0.42	7	0.01	10	0.19	12	0.51	49	0.09	12	0.21
Rabcewiczowa 1932		9	0.45	36	0.00	9	0.20	8	0.60	38	0.15	9	0.30
Rachmaninoff 1923		13	0.41	32	0.00	8	0.29	7	0.61	25	0.43	6	0.51
Rangell 2001		83	0.17	62	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	83	0.02	88	0.02
Richter 1976		62	0.29	48	0.00	67	0.05	51	0.05	77	0.03	59	0.04
Rosen 1989		49	0.32	33	0.00	63	0.05	52	0.05	56	0.04	67	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		4	0.67	6	0.01	4	0.78	4	0.86	4	0.85	4	0.85
Rosenthal 1931		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931b		1	0.79	1	0.79	1	0.78	1	0.94	2	0.94	2	0.94
Rosenthal 1931c		3	0.73	2	0.08	3	0.66	3	0.89	3	0.91	3	0.90
Rosenthal 1931d		2	0.75	3	0.06	2	0.64	2	0.93	2	0.95	1	0.94
Rossi 2007		79	0.21	63	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	72	0.04	72	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		57	0.31	90	0.00	68	0.05	49	0.05	79	0.03	57	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		27	0.38	91	0.00	31	0.06	31	0.28	63	0.04	33	0.11
Rubinstein 1966		29	0.38	64	0.00	42	0.05	40	0.13	71	0.04	43	0.07
Schilhawsky 1960		40	0.35	51	0.00	41	0.05	38	0.16	65	0.04	39	0.08
Shebanova 2002		76	0.23	65	0.00	75	0.04	65	0.04	77	0.04	64	0.04
Smith 1975		43	0.33	19	0.00	50	0.05	58	0.05	70	0.04	56	0.04
Sokolov 2002		48	0.32	55	0.00	46	0.04	61	0.04	61	0.04	54	0.04
Sztompka 1959		75	0.24	46	0.00	70	0.05	53	0.05	78	0.04	60	0.04
Tomsic 1995		59	0.30	66	0.00	66	0.04	73	0.04	57	0.06	51	0.05
Uninsky 1932		63	0.29	52	0.00	37	0.06	39	0.14	67	0.04	44	0.07
Uninsky 1971		70	0.26	74	0.00	71	0.04	59	0.04	87	0.03	76	0.03
Wasowski 1980		65	0.28	27	0.00	76	0.05	57	0.05	81	0.04	53	0.04
Zak 1937		54	0.32	15	0.00	60	0.06	48	0.06	74	0.04	49	0.05
Zak 1951		50	0.32	4	0.01	59	0.04	71	0.04	75	0.04	58	0.04
Average		5	0.55	29	0.00	6	0.21	6	0.71	67	0.04	14	0.17
Random 1		90	-0.07	43	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	50	0.04	87	0.02
Random 2		89	0.03	56	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	24	0.29	40	0.08
Random 3		91	-0.13	21	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	79	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).