Rosenthal 1931c

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		28	0.46	62	0.00	31	0.08	28	0.37	78	0.03	33	0.11
Anderszewski 2003		36	0.44	14	0.00	35	0.09	33	0.26	67	0.04	35	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		53	0.37	12	0.00	51	0.04	57	0.04	79	0.03	79	0.03
Bacha 2000		45	0.40	6	0.00	36	0.07	39	0.21	64	0.04	37	0.09
Badura 1965		86	0.26	56	0.00	81	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.02	90	0.02
Barbosa 1983		88	0.22	34	0.00	64	0.03	71	0.03	86	0.02	89	0.02
Biret 1990		29	0.46	27	0.00	30	0.09	29	0.37	71	0.04	29	0.12
Blet 2003		43	0.41	19	0.00	47	0.06	51	0.06	83	0.02	73	0.03
Block 1995		85	0.26	35	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.03	78	0.03
Blumental 1952		14	0.53	13	0.00	9	0.22	8	0.64	39	0.16	12	0.32
Boshniakovich 1969		46	0.40	36	0.00	62	0.04	63	0.04	71	0.04	61	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		27	0.46	49	0.00	27	0.10	23	0.41	37	0.26	10	0.33
Bunin 1987		78	0.30	15	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	71	0.04	80	0.03
Bunin 1987b		81	0.30	64	0.00	79	0.04	67	0.04	74	0.04	50	0.04
Chiu 1999		83	0.27	57	0.00	60	0.05	55	0.05	81	0.03	49	0.04
Cohen 1997		82	0.27	50	0.00	39	0.06	43	0.13	40	0.12	28	0.12
Cortot 1951		66	0.34	84	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.03
Csalog 1996		19	0.50	65	0.00	26	0.10	26	0.40	36	0.17	14	0.26
Czerny 1949		40	0.42	74	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.15	79	0.03	43	0.07
Czerny 1990		11	0.53	46	0.00	10	0.22	10	0.59	48	0.07	18	0.20
Duchoud 2007		80	0.30	37	0.00	52	0.05	56	0.05	74	0.04	59	0.04
Ezaki 2006		34	0.45	38	0.00	29	0.10	24	0.40	74	0.04	25	0.13
Falvay 1989		23	0.49	75	0.00	16	0.17	20	0.46	33	0.30	9	0.37
Farrell 1958		58	0.35	41	0.00	48	0.06	47	0.06	77	0.04	47	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		54	0.36	20	0.00	66	0.03	73	0.03	76	0.03	74	0.03
Fliere 1977		10	0.54	42	0.00	13	0.13	9	0.59	55	0.05	20	0.17
Fou 1978		41	0.42	51	0.00	32	0.07	34	0.26	71	0.04	34	0.10
Francois 1956		59	0.35	85	0.00	67	0.03	72	0.03	88	0.03	84	0.03
Friedman 1923		74	0.31	30	0.00	70	0.04	62	0.04	80	0.03	86	0.03
Friedman 1923b		73	0.32	18	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	76	0.04	62	0.04
Friedman 1930		56	0.36	47	0.00	61	0.04	68	0.04	70	0.04	57	0.04
Garcia 2007		72	0.33	86	0.00	75	0.03	77	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.03
Garcia 2007b		62	0.35	58	0.00	73	0.03	80	0.03	74	0.04	85	0.03
Gierzod 1998		16	0.53	31	0.00	20	0.08	18	0.51	75	0.03	27	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		13	0.53	21	0.00	12	0.15	12	0.59	45	0.09	15	0.23
Groot 1988		61	0.35	39	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	75	0.04	46	0.06
Harasiewicz 1955		60	0.35	48	0.00	53	0.06	49	0.06	87	0.03	64	0.04
Hatto 1993		70	0.34	76	0.00	54	0.05	53	0.05	85	0.03	63	0.04
Hatto 1997		64	0.35	77	0.00	58	0.06	50	0.06	85	0.03	58	0.04
Horowitz 1949		76	0.31	66	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	82	0.03	88	0.02
Indjic 1988		63	0.35	25	0.00	57	0.05	54	0.05	81	0.03	54	0.04
Kapell 1951		15	0.53	59	0.00	24	0.08	25	0.40	58	0.05	24	0.14
Kissin 1993		31	0.46	23	0.00	33	0.08	36	0.24	78	0.03	39	0.08
Kushner 1989		20	0.50	43	0.00	34	0.10	31	0.29	72	0.04	31	0.11
Luisada 1991		42	0.42	32	0.00	28	0.08	32	0.29	71	0.04	30	0.11
Lushtak 2004		67	0.34	87	0.00	46	0.06	46	0.06	87	0.03	60	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		22	0.49	52	0.00	22	0.09	27	0.38	41	0.11	17	0.20
Magaloff 1978		8	0.57	26	0.00	11	0.24	13	0.58	18	0.37	7	0.46
Magin 1975		18	0.51	78	0.00	23	0.11	17	0.51	82	0.03	26	0.12
Michalowski 1933		44	0.41	53	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.11	80	0.03	44	0.06
Milkina 1970		12	0.53	7	0.00	21	0.10	16	0.53	62	0.05	23	0.16
Mohovich 1999		35	0.45	67	0.00	40	0.06	37	0.23	83	0.03	40	0.08
Moravec 1969		5	0.61	8	0.00	5	0.42	7	0.66	6	0.64	5	0.65
Morozova 2008		55	0.36	28	0.00	59	0.05	52	0.05	81	0.03	56	0.04
Neighaus 1950		65	0.34	88	0.00	74	0.03	78	0.03	83	0.04	82	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		21	0.50	40	0.00	15	0.15	15	0.53	35	0.20	11	0.33
Ohlsson 1999		50	0.38	29	0.00	50	0.04	59	0.04	77	0.04	52	0.04
Osinska 1989		33	0.45	68	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.14	75	0.04	41	0.07
Pachmann 1927		51	0.37	69	0.00	77	0.02	84	0.02	56	0.05	72	0.03
Paderewski 1930		57	0.35	79	0.00	72	0.04	66	0.04	61	0.04	51	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		75	0.31	70	0.00	71	0.04	65	0.04	85	0.03	65	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		87	0.26	89	0.00	88	0.03	70	0.03	79	0.03	67	0.03
Poblocka 1999		25	0.47	44	0.00	38	0.07	38	0.22	77	0.04	38	0.09
Rabcewiczowa 1932		7	0.57	16	0.00	6	0.20	11	0.59	17	0.39	6	0.48
Rachmaninoff 1923		9	0.54	9	0.00	8	0.26	6	0.71	25	0.30	8	0.46
Rangell 2001		69	0.34	63	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	79	0.03	81	0.03
Richter 1976		84	0.26	90	0.00	87	0.03	74	0.03	81	0.03	71	0.03
Rosen 1989		30	0.46	54	0.00	37	0.08	35	0.26	80	0.04	36	0.10
Rosenthal 1930		4	0.81	4	0.04	4	0.81	4	0.92	1	0.92	4	0.92
Rosenthal 1931		2	0.87	3	0.09	3	0.81	3	0.94	3	0.94	3	0.94
Rosenthal 1931b		1	0.88	1	0.53	1	0.53	2	0.96	3	0.95	2	0.95
Rosenthal 1931c		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931d		3	0.86	2	0.30	2	0.51	1	0.96	3	0.96	1	0.96
Rossi 2007		71	0.33	91	0.00	65	0.03	75	0.03	75	0.04	66	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		32	0.45	24	0.00	18	0.11	22	0.44	44	0.10	16	0.21
Rubinstein 1952		26	0.47	71	0.00	14	0.13	21	0.46	38	0.20	13	0.30
Rubinstein 1966		49	0.38	11	0.00	56	0.04	61	0.04	70	0.05	55	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		38	0.44	5	0.00	19	0.08	30	0.30	73	0.04	32	0.11
Shebanova 2002		37	0.44	80	0.00	41	0.05	40	0.17	81	0.03	42	0.07
Smith 1975		17	0.52	45	0.00	17	0.21	14	0.57	56	0.05	22	0.17
Sokolov 2002		24	0.49	60	0.00	25	0.10	19	0.47	46	0.06	21	0.17
Sztompka 1959		39	0.43	81	0.00	49	0.06	48	0.06	77	0.04	48	0.05
Tomsic 1995		79	0.30	82	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	80	0.04	70	0.03
Uninsky 1932		47	0.38	33	0.00	55	0.04	60	0.04	83	0.03	75	0.03
Uninsky 1971		68	0.34	55	0.00	85	0.03	76	0.03	63	0.05	53	0.04
Wasowski 1980		77	0.31	83	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.03	87	0.02
Zak 1937		48	0.38	22	0.00	68	0.03	69	0.03	86	0.03	68	0.03
Zak 1951		52	0.37	17	0.00	69	0.04	58	0.04	88	0.02	69	0.03
Average		6	0.60	10	0.00	7	0.21	5	0.79	67	0.04	19	0.18
Random 1		90	-0.10	72	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	31	0.17	45	0.06
Random 2		89	-0.03	73	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	48	0.04	76	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.15	61	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.01	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).