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		8	0.68	27	0.00	11	0.25	7	0.61	13	0.53	9	0.57
Anderszewski 2003		29	0.59	44	0.00	32	0.06	30	0.28	30	0.37	24	0.32
Ashkenazy 1981		45	0.55	38	0.00	48	0.05	68	0.05	39	0.18	67	0.09
Bacha 2000		56	0.53	21	0.00	43	0.05	45	0.10	14	0.41	42	0.20
Badura 1965		62	0.52	54	0.00	66	0.05	54	0.05	35	0.30	60	0.12
Barbosa 1983		73	0.49	78	0.00	46	0.05	59	0.05	33	0.32	59	0.13
Biret 1990		36	0.57	49	0.00	38	0.06	35	0.26	38	0.19	40	0.22
Blet 2003		50	0.54	68	0.00	67	0.06	52	0.06	18	0.36	51	0.15
Block 1995		72	0.50	15	0.01	37	0.06	37	0.19	18	0.41	32	0.28
Blumental 1952		40	0.56	11	0.01	14	0.10	17	0.40	20	0.34	19	0.37
Boshniakovich 1969		22	0.62	48	0.00	33	0.07	36	0.24	41	0.17	44	0.20
Brailowsky 1960		57	0.53	61	0.00	70	0.05	70	0.05	28	0.38	54	0.14
Bunin 1987		88	0.33	83	0.00	88	0.04	79	0.04	51	0.05	85	0.04
Bunin 1987b		87	0.34	58	0.00	87	0.04	77	0.04	60	0.04	82	0.04
Chiu 1999		54	0.53	39	0.00	47	0.05	69	0.05	8	0.41	56	0.14
Cohen 1997		85	0.40	22	0.00	77	0.04	76	0.04	23	0.30	62	0.11
Cortot 1951		86	0.37	76	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	69	0.04	90	0.03
Csalog 1996		43	0.55	45	0.00	42	0.05	44	0.12	14	0.43	38	0.23
Czerny 1949		58	0.53	88	0.00	56	0.04	74	0.04	61	0.05	84	0.04
Czerny 1990		21	0.62	51	0.00	30	0.06	27	0.32	43	0.15	39	0.22
Duchoud 2007		60	0.53	18	0.01	49	0.05	57	0.05	6	0.53	49	0.16
Ezaki 2006		16	0.64	23	0.00	31	0.06	29	0.29	29	0.32	27	0.30
Falvay 1989		26	0.60	33	0.00	50	0.06	53	0.06	17	0.48	46	0.17
Farrell 1958		68	0.51	73	0.00	63	0.06	48	0.06	58	0.06	74	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		39	0.57	16	0.01	24	0.06	39	0.17	5	0.57	26	0.31
Fliere 1977		3	0.71	12	0.01	6	0.14	3	0.71	18	0.47	8	0.58
Fou 1978		11	0.67	17	0.01	12	0.13	12	0.52	14	0.50	13	0.51
Francois 1956		46	0.55	46	0.00	52	0.05	62	0.05	21	0.47	52	0.15
Friedman 1923		48	0.55	36	0.00	57	0.05	58	0.05	24	0.43	53	0.15
Friedman 1923b		47	0.55	30	0.00	58	0.07	47	0.07	27	0.42	48	0.17
Friedman 1930		41	0.56	35	0.00	59	0.08	46	0.08	19	0.49	43	0.20
Garcia 2007		51	0.54	79	0.00	61	0.06	51	0.06	25	0.41	50	0.16
Garcia 2007b		25	0.60	29	0.00	35	0.10	34	0.27	22	0.46	22	0.35
Gierzod 1998		4	0.71	3	0.05	4	0.14	4	0.68	19	0.54	5	0.61
Gornostaeva 1994		13	0.65	63	0.00	15	0.12	14	0.49	8	0.59	12	0.54
Groot 1988		59	0.53	19	0.01	19	0.08	28	0.31	15	0.39	21	0.35
Harasiewicz 1955		23	0.62	43	0.00	18	0.10	25	0.34	41	0.17	36	0.24
Hatto 1993		34	0.58	64	0.00	28	0.08	20	0.39	37	0.21	31	0.29
Hatto 1997		33	0.58	74	0.00	29	0.06	22	0.36	36	0.17	35	0.25
Horowitz 1949		84	0.42	89	0.00	76	0.04	73	0.04	58	0.06	76	0.05
Indjic 1988		30	0.59	40	0.00	27	0.07	19	0.39	35	0.22	30	0.29
Kapell 1951		24	0.61	26	0.00	34	0.09	24	0.35	41	0.18	34	0.25
Kissin 1993		15	0.65	47	0.00	17	0.13	15	0.43	34	0.36	17	0.39
Kushner 1989		7	0.68	2	0.06	8	0.21	11	0.58	21	0.54	10	0.56
Luisada 1991		9	0.68	4	0.04	3	0.16	8	0.60	5	0.69	2	0.64
Lushtak 2004		55	0.53	37	0.00	54	0.05	56	0.05	61	0.05	79	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		67	0.51	59	0.00	73	0.06	49	0.06	59	0.04	75	0.05
Magaloff 1978		61	0.52	55	0.00	64	0.04	75	0.04	43	0.11	73	0.07
Magin 1975		2	0.71	9	0.02	2	0.18	2	0.71	3	0.64	1	0.67
Michalowski 1933		66	0.51	42	0.00	72	0.04	72	0.04	33	0.26	64	0.10
Milkina 1970		5	0.70	7	0.02	7	0.16	5	0.67	12	0.60	3	0.63
Mohovich 1999		14	0.65	6	0.03	10	0.24	9	0.60	11	0.64	4	0.62
Moravec 1969		74	0.48	57	0.00	75	0.05	63	0.05	35	0.21	63	0.10
Morozova 2008		35	0.58	32	0.00	40	0.06	40	0.17	35	0.27	41	0.21
Neighaus 1950		65	0.51	91	0.00	69	0.04	78	0.04	68	0.04	86	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		70	0.51	24	0.00	55	0.05	65	0.05	32	0.25	61	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		19	0.63	13	0.01	16	0.10	13	0.50	15	0.49	14	0.49
Osinska 1989		6	0.70	14	0.01	9	0.24	6	0.63	17	0.57	6	0.60
Pachmann 1927		75	0.47	56	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	25	0.36	70	0.08
Paderewski 1930		82	0.43	80	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	49	0.04	87	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		42	0.55	34	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.16	19	0.44	33	0.27
Pierdomenico 2008		53	0.54	75	0.00	71	0.05	66	0.05	23	0.40	57	0.14
Poblocka 1999		31	0.58	77	0.00	44	0.06	42	0.15	40	0.19	45	0.17
Rabcewiczowa 1932		52	0.54	84	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.19	28	0.27	37	0.23
Rachmaninoff 1923		63	0.52	60	0.00	53	0.05	60	0.05	71	0.04	81	0.04
Rangell 2001		76	0.47	28	0.00	74	0.05	71	0.05	45	0.16	68	0.09
Richter 1976		78	0.45	25	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	57	0.05	83	0.04
Rosen 1989		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1930		79	0.45	41	0.00	80	0.03	86	0.03	53	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.44	85	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	40	0.20	71	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.44	62	0.00	81	0.03	85	0.03	34	0.27	69	0.09
Rosenthal 1931c		77	0.46	65	0.00	78	0.04	80	0.04	35	0.26	65	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		83	0.43	81	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	30	0.32	72	0.08
Rossi 2007		49	0.54	31	0.00	51	0.05	61	0.05	17	0.41	55	0.14
Rubinstein 1939		44	0.55	50	0.00	60	0.06	50	0.06	34	0.31	58	0.14
Rubinstein 1952		37	0.57	20	0.01	23	0.07	33	0.27	23	0.43	23	0.34
Rubinstein 1966		27	0.60	86	0.00	26	0.07	32	0.28	32	0.34	25	0.31
Schilhawsky 1960		64	0.51	70	0.00	62	0.05	64	0.05	55	0.05	77	0.05
Shebanova 2002		10	0.67	5	0.03	5	0.13	10	0.60	15	0.50	11	0.55
Smith 1975		12	0.66	10	0.02	13	0.11	18	0.40	13	0.42	16	0.41
Sokolov 2002		69	0.51	53	0.00	65	0.05	55	0.05	39	0.15	66	0.09
Sztompka 1959		17	0.63	66	0.00	22	0.08	23	0.36	38	0.23	29	0.29
Tomsic 1995		38	0.57	8	0.02	20	0.09	31	0.28	6	0.63	15	0.42
Uninsky 1932		71	0.50	82	0.00	68	0.05	67	0.05	49	0.06	78	0.05
Uninsky 1971		32	0.58	71	0.00	45	0.06	43	0.13	37	0.21	47	0.17
Wasowski 1980		28	0.59	67	0.00	36	0.11	26	0.33	23	0.43	18	0.38
Zak 1937		20	0.62	72	0.00	25	0.05	21	0.37	34	0.23	28	0.29
Zak 1951		18	0.63	87	0.00	21	0.10	16	0.40	29	0.32	20	0.36
Average		1	0.78	1	0.58	1	0.57	1	0.83	25	0.43	7	0.60
Random 1		91	-0.10	90	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	27	0.23	80	0.05
Random 2		89	-0.06	52	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	42	0.08	88	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.08	69	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	73	0.04	91	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).