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		34	0.44	60	0.00	40	0.09	29	0.27	72	0.04	29	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		29	0.45	18	0.00	27	0.06	25	0.32	79	0.03	28	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		46	0.38	81	0.00	35	0.06	39	0.21	86	0.03	40	0.08
Bacha 2000		48	0.38	47	0.00	31	0.05	41	0.18	83	0.03	41	0.07
Badura 1965		85	0.25	82	0.00	76	0.03	75	0.03	69	0.04	78	0.03
Barbosa 1983		88	0.22	83	0.00	58	0.06	55	0.06	82	0.03	56	0.04
Biret 1990		22	0.46	42	0.00	22	0.10	21	0.42	88	0.03	24	0.11
Blet 2003		50	0.38	39	0.00	50	0.08	46	0.08	78	0.03	49	0.05
Block 1995		67	0.32	7	0.00	54	0.05	59	0.05	77	0.04	61	0.04
Blumental 1952		19	0.47	53	0.00	11	0.14	9	0.60	61	0.04	14	0.15
Boshniakovich 1969		56	0.35	69	0.00	72	0.03	82	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		14	0.50	9	0.00	15	0.16	10	0.58	25	0.41	6	0.49
Bunin 1987		86	0.24	16	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	82	0.03	88	0.02
Bunin 1987b		87	0.23	34	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.03	68	0.03
Chiu 1999		84	0.25	61	0.00	57	0.04	63	0.04	83	0.03	65	0.03
Cohen 1997		82	0.26	70	0.00	30	0.05	44	0.15	47	0.06	36	0.09
Cortot 1951		65	0.33	71	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.02	90	0.02
Csalog 1996		32	0.44	12	0.00	25	0.06	26	0.30	52	0.05	21	0.12
Czerny 1949		44	0.39	62	0.00	52	0.06	57	0.06	78	0.03	60	0.04
Czerny 1990		13	0.50	84	0.00	9	0.12	12	0.55	69	0.04	15	0.15
Duchoud 2007		80	0.27	85	0.00	71	0.03	70	0.03	76	0.03	76	0.03
Ezaki 2006		25	0.46	26	0.00	19	0.16	13	0.55	68	0.04	13	0.15
Falvay 1989		18	0.48	30	0.00	18	0.13	19	0.47	54	0.06	11	0.17
Farrell 1958		53	0.37	6	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	71	0.04	47	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		57	0.35	72	0.00	67	0.04	65	0.04	87	0.02	75	0.03
Fliere 1977		17	0.48	35	0.00	21	0.11	23	0.39	81	0.03	23	0.11
Fou 1978		36	0.44	19	0.00	23	0.11	22	0.40	79	0.04	19	0.13
Francois 1956		61	0.33	63	0.00	59	0.04	62	0.04	80	0.03	82	0.03
Friedman 1923		69	0.32	86	0.00	65	0.03	74	0.03	77	0.04	84	0.03
Friedman 1923b		68	0.32	43	0.00	62	0.04	64	0.04	78	0.04	62	0.04
Friedman 1930		58	0.35	20	0.00	66	0.04	68	0.04	86	0.03	74	0.03
Garcia 2007		73	0.31	87	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	88	0.03	77	0.03
Garcia 2007b		62	0.33	54	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	73	0.04	83	0.03
Gierzod 1998		21	0.47	88	0.00	37	0.06	27	0.29	87	0.02	38	0.08
Gornostaeva 1994		10	0.53	73	0.00	12	0.17	15	0.52	57	0.04	17	0.14
Groot 1988		52	0.37	13	0.00	26	0.06	36	0.23	84	0.04	31	0.10
Harasiewicz 1955		55	0.36	17	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	65	0.04	51	0.05
Hatto 1993		78	0.30	55	0.00	63	0.04	69	0.04	88	0.02	81	0.03
Hatto 1997		76	0.31	89	0.00	69	0.06	53	0.06	86	0.03	58	0.04
Horowitz 1949		66	0.33	36	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	72	0.04	70	0.03
Indjic 1988		75	0.31	27	0.00	68	0.04	67	0.04	88	0.03	73	0.03
Kapell 1951		15	0.50	21	0.00	24	0.06	24	0.33	85	0.03	26	0.10
Kissin 1993		35	0.44	74	0.00	33	0.05	31	0.26	71	0.04	27	0.10
Kushner 1989		20	0.47	31	0.00	41	0.06	37	0.22	80	0.03	37	0.08
Luisada 1991		42	0.39	22	0.00	49	0.06	52	0.06	84	0.03	52	0.04
Lushtak 2004		60	0.33	23	0.00	34	0.06	42	0.16	84	0.03	45	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		24	0.46	56	0.00	42	0.08	34	0.24	86	0.02	42	0.07
Magaloff 1978		12	0.51	14	0.00	17	0.15	16	0.51	52	0.06	10	0.17
Magin 1975		9	0.53	48	0.00	10	0.13	8	0.63	65	0.04	12	0.16
Michalowski 1933		40	0.40	75	0.00	56	0.06	48	0.06	72	0.04	48	0.05
Milkina 1970		11	0.51	40	0.00	20	0.10	20	0.46	82	0.03	20	0.12
Mohovich 1999		30	0.45	15	0.00	36	0.07	30	0.26	67	0.04	30	0.10
Moravec 1969		5	0.59	28	0.00	5	0.47	7	0.64	7	0.63	5	0.63
Morozova 2008		47	0.38	76	0.00	48	0.06	54	0.06	82	0.03	57	0.04
Neighaus 1950		70	0.32	77	0.00	81	0.03	73	0.03	72	0.04	80	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		26	0.45	37	0.00	13	0.12	14	0.52	41	0.15	9	0.28
Ohlsson 1999		49	0.38	49	0.00	53	0.05	58	0.05	88	0.03	55	0.04
Osinska 1989		27	0.45	5	0.00	39	0.07	33	0.25	84	0.03	32	0.09
Pachmann 1927		63	0.33	50	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	79	0.03	86	0.02
Paderewski 1930		74	0.31	57	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	70	0.03	71	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		64	0.33	25	0.00	64	0.03	72	0.03	65	0.04	64	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		81	0.27	90	0.00	88	0.04	66	0.04	87	0.03	66	0.03
Poblocka 1999		23	0.46	10	0.00	43	0.08	35	0.24	69	0.04	25	0.10
Rabcewiczowa 1932		7	0.56	58	0.00	7	0.25	11	0.57	24	0.29	8	0.41
Rachmaninoff 1923		8	0.53	24	0.00	6	0.29	6	0.68	28	0.28	7	0.44
Rangell 2001		59	0.34	32	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	87	0.02	89	0.02
Richter 1976		83	0.25	51	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	82	0.03	85	0.02
Rosen 1989		33	0.44	44	0.00	44	0.09	40	0.20	81	0.03	39	0.08
Rosenthal 1930		4	0.77	4	0.01	4	0.76	4	0.88	4	0.89	4	0.88
Rosenthal 1931		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931b		1	0.92	1	0.88	1	0.87	1	0.96	2	0.96	2	0.96
Rosenthal 1931c		3	0.87	3	0.02	3	0.83	3	0.94	3	0.94	3	0.94
Rosenthal 1931d		2	0.88	2	0.07	2	0.77	2	0.96	2	0.97	1	0.96
Rossi 2007		72	0.31	64	0.00	70	0.04	60	0.04	60	0.04	53	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		39	0.40	45	0.00	32	0.05	28	0.28	79	0.03	34	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		28	0.45	65	0.00	14	0.14	18	0.47	71	0.04	18	0.14
Rubinstein 1966		38	0.41	91	0.00	47	0.06	51	0.06	63	0.05	50	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		43	0.39	46	0.00	28	0.05	38	0.21	66	0.04	35	0.09
Shebanova 2002		41	0.40	59	0.00	55	0.06	56	0.06	85	0.03	59	0.04
Smith 1975		16	0.49	11	0.00	16	0.15	17	0.50	62	0.04	16	0.14
Sokolov 2002		31	0.44	78	0.00	38	0.06	32	0.26	85	0.03	33	0.09
Sztompka 1959		37	0.43	29	0.00	45	0.08	43	0.16	87	0.03	43	0.07
Tomsic 1995		77	0.30	66	0.00	77	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.04	69	0.03
Uninsky 1932		45	0.38	79	0.00	29	0.06	45	0.13	73	0.04	44	0.07
Uninsky 1971		79	0.29	80	0.00	87	0.03	78	0.03	88	0.03	72	0.03
Wasowski 1980		71	0.31	41	0.00	80	0.03	71	0.03	73	0.04	63	0.03
Zak 1937		51	0.37	52	0.00	60	0.04	61	0.04	88	0.02	67	0.03
Zak 1951		54	0.36	8	0.00	61	0.06	50	0.06	86	0.03	54	0.04
Average		6	0.58	67	0.00	8	0.36	5	0.75	85	0.02	22	0.12
Random 1		90	-0.12	68	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	73	0.02	87	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.02	38	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	32	0.20	46	0.06
Random 3		91	-0.15	33	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	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).