Rosenthal 1931d

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		23	0.39	30	0.00	33	0.07	33	0.29	34	0.22	13	0.25
Anderszewski 2003		44	0.32	56	0.00	48	0.06	52	0.06	87	0.02	70	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		54	0.28	57	0.00	47	0.05	59	0.05	75	0.03	62	0.04
Bacha 2000		53	0.29	43	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.13	53	0.04	43	0.07
Badura 1965		57	0.28	12	0.00	63	0.04	67	0.04	77	0.03	76	0.03
Barbosa 1983		58	0.28	21	0.00	49	0.05	57	0.05	75	0.03	57	0.04
Biret 1990		18	0.41	58	0.00	23	0.12	18	0.47	70	0.04	26	0.14
Blet 2003		21	0.39	7	0.00	14	0.08	14	0.50	26	0.24	8	0.35
Block 1995		46	0.31	59	0.00	32	0.08	27	0.35	64	0.04	32	0.12
Blumental 1952		8	0.44	35	0.00	8	0.22	10	0.59	38	0.19	9	0.33
Boshniakovich 1969		61	0.27	47	0.00	65	0.04	70	0.04	81	0.03	77	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		6	0.50	5	0.00	5	0.29	5	0.74	21	0.52	5	0.62
Bunin 1987		35	0.34	74	0.00	40	0.06	41	0.14	65	0.04	46	0.07
Bunin 1987b		40	0.33	36	0.00	37	0.08	37	0.21	74	0.04	37	0.09
Chiu 1999		52	0.29	32	0.00	50	0.06	50	0.06	67	0.04	50	0.05
Cohen 1997		69	0.24	33	0.00	55	0.05	53	0.05	87	0.02	78	0.03
Cortot 1951		73	0.23	60	0.00	71	0.03	76	0.03	62	0.04	80	0.03
Csalog 1996		11	0.44	75	0.00	9	0.16	11	0.57	42	0.14	11	0.28
Czerny 1949		67	0.24	76	0.00	75	0.04	69	0.04	71	0.04	59	0.04
Czerny 1990		45	0.32	77	0.00	35	0.09	31	0.31	86	0.03	36	0.10
Duchoud 2007		83	0.17	78	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	71	0.03	75	0.03
Ezaki 2006		30	0.36	61	0.00	34	0.09	35	0.27	58	0.05	28	0.12
Falvay 1989		13	0.43	16	0.00	16	0.10	16	0.49	76	0.04	20	0.14
Farrell 1958		65	0.25	48	0.00	64	0.04	63	0.04	83	0.03	64	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		12	0.43	17	0.00	17	0.12	12	0.56	26	0.43	7	0.49
Fliere 1977		14	0.43	37	0.00	12	0.13	20	0.46	62	0.05	18	0.15
Fou 1978		15	0.41	34	0.00	20	0.12	15	0.50	70	0.04	21	0.14
Francois 1956		77	0.22	62	0.00	70	0.03	77	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03
Friedman 1923		60	0.27	26	0.00	46	0.08	46	0.08	58	0.05	49	0.06
Friedman 1923b		59	0.27	63	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	59	0.05	47	0.07
Friedman 1930		64	0.26	31	0.00	61	0.04	66	0.04	84	0.03	73	0.03
Garcia 2007		74	0.23	79	0.00	77	0.05	54	0.05	77	0.03	60	0.04
Garcia 2007b		70	0.24	64	0.00	68	0.03	78	0.03	84	0.02	91	0.02
Gierzod 1998		29	0.37	65	0.00	22	0.11	28	0.34	74	0.04	31	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		55	0.28	8	0.00	58	0.05	58	0.05	83	0.02	79	0.03
Groot 1988		9	0.44	9	0.00	11	0.16	9	0.59	43	0.10	14	0.24
Harasiewicz 1955		41	0.32	66	0.00	36	0.08	36	0.22	74	0.04	39	0.09
Hatto 1993		20	0.40	13	0.00	19	0.11	17	0.47	82	0.03	33	0.12
Hatto 1997		24	0.39	80	0.00	28	0.07	24	0.37	76	0.04	30	0.12
Horowitz 1949		42	0.32	19	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	38	0.17	22	0.14
Indjic 1988		22	0.39	49	0.00	25	0.15	23	0.39	82	0.03	34	0.11
Kapell 1951		32	0.35	67	0.00	38	0.06	40	0.17	78	0.03	45	0.07
Kissin 1993		84	0.17	81	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02
Kushner 1989		39	0.33	50	0.00	56	0.05	56	0.05	85	0.03	56	0.04
Luisada 1991		25	0.39	82	0.00	31	0.07	30	0.31	48	0.06	19	0.14
Lushtak 2004		62	0.27	68	0.00	57	0.04	60	0.04	75	0.04	61	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		33	0.34	11	0.00	27	0.08	34	0.28	74	0.03	38	0.09
Magaloff 1978		17	0.41	20	0.00	24	0.10	22	0.44	47	0.08	16	0.19
Magin 1975		19	0.40	51	0.00	29	0.09	25	0.36	84	0.03	35	0.10
Michalowski 1933		78	0.21	18	0.00	66	0.04	64	0.04	62	0.03	68	0.03
Milkina 1970		47	0.30	52	0.00	62	0.04	62	0.04	88	0.02	65	0.03
Mohovich 1999		16	0.41	22	0.00	13	0.10	13	0.51	69	0.04	25	0.14
Moravec 1969		27	0.38	83	0.00	21	0.10	19	0.46	47	0.09	15	0.20
Morozova 2008		56	0.28	84	0.00	60	0.04	68	0.04	83	0.03	72	0.03
Neighaus 1950		87	0.15	44	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	75	0.03	90	0.02
Niedzielski 1931		49	0.29	85	0.00	26	0.09	32	0.29	29	0.26	12	0.27
Ohlsson 1999		63	0.26	69	0.00	69	0.03	75	0.03	87	0.02	86	0.02
Osinska 1989		38	0.33	23	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.13	72	0.04	44	0.07
Pachmann 1927		85	0.15	38	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	84	0.02	85	0.02
Paderewski 1930		86	0.15	70	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	75	0.03	84	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		68	0.24	24	0.00	73	0.05	55	0.05	80	0.03	52	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		66	0.25	15	0.00	76	0.04	71	0.04	67	0.04	54	0.04
Poblocka 1999		28	0.37	86	0.00	15	0.09	21	0.45	65	0.06	17	0.16
Rabcewiczowa 1932		10	0.44	27	0.00	10	0.17	8	0.60	41	0.13	10	0.28
Rachmaninoff 1923		7	0.45	6	0.00	7	0.26	7	0.66	15	0.50	6	0.57
Rangell 2001		88	0.13	87	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	89	0.02	89	0.02
Richter 1976		76	0.22	42	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	86	0.02	83	0.02
Rosen 1989		48	0.30	45	0.00	51	0.07	48	0.07	58	0.04	51	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		4	0.69	4	0.03	4	0.81	4	0.90	2	0.87	4	0.88
Rosenthal 1931		3	0.75	3	0.07	3	0.84	2	0.95	2	0.93	2	0.94
Rosenthal 1931b		1	0.79	1	0.67	1	0.66	1	0.95	1	0.95	1	0.95
Rosenthal 1931c		2	0.75	2	0.21	2	0.57	3	0.94	2	0.94	3	0.94
Rosenthal 1931d		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rossi 2007		81	0.21	28	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03	63	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		37	0.33	10	0.00	52	0.06	49	0.06	76	0.03	55	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		34	0.34	71	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.20	72	0.03	42	0.08
Rubinstein 1966		50	0.29	72	0.00	67	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.03	71	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		26	0.38	39	0.00	30	0.07	29	0.34	47	0.06	23	0.14
Shebanova 2002		75	0.23	88	0.00	74	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.03	74	0.03
Smith 1975		31	0.35	53	0.00	18	0.12	26	0.35	67	0.04	29	0.12
Sokolov 2002		51	0.29	14	0.00	54	0.06	51	0.06	69	0.03	53	0.04
Sztompka 1959		82	0.18	40	0.00	83	0.04	73	0.04	84	0.03	67	0.03
Tomsic 1995		79	0.21	46	0.00	82	0.03	74	0.03	82	0.03	66	0.03
Uninsky 1932		71	0.23	54	0.00	59	0.04	61	0.04	57	0.04	58	0.04
Uninsky 1971		72	0.23	89	0.00	78	0.04	65	0.04	88	0.02	69	0.03
Wasowski 1980		80	0.21	41	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	89	0.02	82	0.02
Zak 1937		43	0.32	29	0.00	53	0.08	47	0.08	77	0.04	48	0.06
Zak 1951		36	0.33	90	0.00	42	0.07	39	0.17	70	0.04	40	0.08
Average		5	0.53	25	0.00	6	0.29	6	0.70	83	0.03	24	0.14
Random 1		90	-0.01	73	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	25	0.32	41	0.08
Random 2		89	0.07	55	0.00	72	0.04	72	0.04	11	0.43	27	0.13
Random 3		91	-0.05	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	65	0.03	88	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).