Rosenthal 1931b

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		27	0.44	56	0.00	29	0.08	23	0.36	84	0.03	29	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		30	0.44	17	0.00	37	0.08	32	0.27	82	0.03	33	0.09
Ashkenazy 1981		44	0.39	23	0.00	22	0.08	24	0.35	77	0.03	30	0.10
Bacha 2000		39	0.40	8	0.00	21	0.07	31	0.27	77	0.03	31	0.09
Badura 1965		87	0.23	16	0.00	78	0.02	83	0.02	78	0.03	87	0.02
Barbosa 1983		88	0.20	24	0.00	63	0.04	67	0.04	88	0.02	73	0.03
Biret 1990		13	0.50	5	0.00	16	0.10	14	0.54	56	0.05	18	0.16
Blet 2003		45	0.39	30	0.00	47	0.05	62	0.05	84	0.02	74	0.03
Block 1995		82	0.28	20	0.00	74	0.04	65	0.04	88	0.02	78	0.03
Blumental 1952		16	0.49	12	0.00	10	0.18	7	0.65	78	0.04	17	0.16
Boshniakovich 1969		55	0.35	46	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	88	0.02	89	0.02
Brailowsky 1960		20	0.47	57	0.00	19	0.11	16	0.50	34	0.28	9	0.37
Bunin 1987		84	0.25	69	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	79	0.03	91	0.02
Bunin 1987b		85	0.25	70	0.00	84	0.03	76	0.03	78	0.03	68	0.03
Chiu 1999		83	0.26	71	0.00	62	0.04	70	0.04	68	0.04	51	0.04
Cohen 1997		78	0.28	47	0.00	25	0.07	38	0.18	34	0.19	12	0.18
Cortot 1951		72	0.31	58	0.00	81	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.03	82	0.03
Csalog 1996		24	0.46	11	0.00	30	0.07	27	0.29	55	0.05	24	0.12
Czerny 1949		51	0.37	59	0.00	59	0.05	60	0.05	87	0.02	76	0.03
Czerny 1990		17	0.49	72	0.00	11	0.19	13	0.55	62	0.05	14	0.17
Duchoud 2007		77	0.29	73	0.00	61	0.05	64	0.05	73	0.04	59	0.04
Ezaki 2006		31	0.43	32	0.00	24	0.09	22	0.41	82	0.03	25	0.11
Falvay 1989		21	0.47	74	0.00	20	0.16	19	0.47	51	0.07	10	0.18
Farrell 1958		60	0.35	75	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	86	0.03	47	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		57	0.35	33	0.00	69	0.05	58	0.05	73	0.03	58	0.04
Fliere 1977		14	0.49	13	0.00	18	0.10	20	0.45	82	0.03	22	0.12
Fou 1978		35	0.42	31	0.00	28	0.08	25	0.31	59	0.05	23	0.12
Francois 1956		50	0.37	48	0.00	50	0.06	47	0.06	73	0.04	49	0.05
Friedman 1923		71	0.31	14	0.00	70	0.05	57	0.05	84	0.03	64	0.04
Friedman 1923b		69	0.31	6	0.00	66	0.05	63	0.05	84	0.03	61	0.04
Friedman 1930		53	0.36	60	0.00	60	0.05	61	0.05	79	0.04	57	0.04
Garcia 2007		65	0.33	37	0.00	72	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03	77	0.03
Garcia 2007b		58	0.35	61	0.00	71	0.04	69	0.04	76	0.04	63	0.04
Gierzod 1998		23	0.47	76	0.00	35	0.07	30	0.28	79	0.03	34	0.09
Gornostaeva 1994		10	0.53	77	0.00	13	0.18	11	0.59	50	0.04	19	0.15
Groot 1988		43	0.39	40	0.00	26	0.08	29	0.28	88	0.03	37	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		56	0.35	49	0.00	52	0.05	59	0.05	66	0.04	62	0.04
Hatto 1993		76	0.30	50	0.00	65	0.04	66	0.04	79	0.03	81	0.03
Hatto 1997		73	0.30	41	0.00	68	0.04	71	0.04	81	0.03	75	0.03
Horowitz 1949		67	0.32	62	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	89	0.02	85	0.02
Indjic 1988		74	0.30	63	0.00	67	0.04	73	0.04	79	0.03	72	0.03
Kapell 1951		19	0.47	64	0.00	34	0.05	35	0.25	77	0.04	27	0.10
Kissin 1993		38	0.41	51	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	77	0.03	55	0.04
Kushner 1989		18	0.48	42	0.00	32	0.06	26	0.31	83	0.03	26	0.10
Luisada 1991		49	0.37	22	0.00	49	0.06	48	0.06	72	0.04	46	0.05
Lushtak 2004		68	0.32	52	0.00	46	0.06	49	0.06	77	0.03	60	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		25	0.45	18	0.00	33	0.06	33	0.27	70	0.04	28	0.10
Magaloff 1978		11	0.51	65	0.00	17	0.10	17	0.50	53	0.05	15	0.16
Magin 1975		9	0.53	9	0.00	12	0.15	8	0.65	84	0.03	20	0.14
Michalowski 1933		40	0.40	15	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.12	73	0.03	45	0.06
Milkina 1970		12	0.50	38	0.00	23	0.08	21	0.42	75	0.04	21	0.13
Mohovich 1999		33	0.43	53	0.00	40	0.06	37	0.19	71	0.04	36	0.09
Moravec 1969		5	0.58	78	0.00	5	0.36	9	0.65	9	0.60	5	0.62
Morozova 2008		59	0.35	43	0.00	55	0.05	51	0.05	80	0.03	56	0.04
Neighaus 1950		63	0.33	79	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	84	0.03	80	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		22	0.47	10	0.00	9	0.18	10	0.61	27	0.30	7	0.43
Ohlsson 1999		54	0.36	80	0.00	58	0.05	56	0.05	82	0.03	54	0.04
Osinska 1989		29	0.44	54	0.00	39	0.07	39	0.18	87	0.03	39	0.07
Pachmann 1927		70	0.31	34	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	82	0.02	86	0.02
Paderewski 1930		62	0.34	25	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	84	0.03	70	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		61	0.34	81	0.00	54	0.05	53	0.05	84	0.03	50	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		75	0.30	82	0.00	79	0.02	86	0.02	77	0.04	67	0.03
Poblocka 1999		37	0.41	21	0.00	53	0.05	55	0.05	88	0.02	65	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		7	0.55	26	0.00	7	0.26	12	0.59	23	0.30	8	0.42
Rachmaninoff 1923		8	0.53	19	0.00	6	0.29	6	0.69	23	0.32	6	0.47
Rangell 2001		66	0.32	83	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.03
Richter 1976		86	0.24	66	0.00	88	0.04	72	0.04	89	0.02	69	0.03
Rosen 1989		26	0.44	35	0.00	31	0.07	34	0.27	85	0.03	35	0.09
Rosenthal 1930		4	0.79	4	0.01	4	0.81	4	0.93	2	0.92	4	0.92
Rosenthal 1931		1	0.92	1	0.68	1	0.67	2	0.96	1	0.96	2	0.96
Rosenthal 1931b		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931c		3	0.88	3	0.09	3	0.84	3	0.95	2	0.96	3	0.95
Rosenthal 1931d		2	0.90	2	0.20	2	0.72	1	0.97	1	0.97	1	0.97
Rossi 2007		64	0.33	27	0.00	64	0.04	68	0.04	87	0.03	66	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		42	0.39	39	0.00	41	0.06	40	0.18	50	0.05	32	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		28	0.44	28	0.00	15	0.15	18	0.47	47	0.07	13	0.18
Rubinstein 1966		41	0.40	84	0.00	51	0.08	46	0.08	86	0.03	48	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		46	0.39	85	0.00	27	0.07	36	0.22	83	0.03	38	0.08
Shebanova 2002		36	0.42	86	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.16	84	0.03	43	0.07
Smith 1975		15	0.49	44	0.00	14	0.21	15	0.53	57	0.05	16	0.16
Sokolov 2002		32	0.43	67	0.00	36	0.08	28	0.28	88	0.02	40	0.07
Sztompka 1959		34	0.42	55	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.16	82	0.03	41	0.07
Tomsic 1995		81	0.28	68	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02	84	0.02
Uninsky 1932		52	0.36	36	0.00	38	0.06	44	0.12	76	0.04	42	0.07
Uninsky 1971		79	0.28	87	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	84	0.04	71	0.03
Wasowski 1980		80	0.28	88	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	84	0.03	83	0.02
Zak 1937		47	0.38	89	0.00	56	0.05	54	0.05	87	0.03	52	0.04
Zak 1951		48	0.37	7	0.00	57	0.05	52	0.05	87	0.03	53	0.04
Average		6	0.58	29	0.00	8	0.32	5	0.77	72	0.04	11	0.18
Random 1		90	-0.11	45	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	64	0.03	88	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.03	90	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	28	0.24	44	0.07
Random 3		91	-0.12	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	81	0.03	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).