Rosenthal 1930

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		29	0.55	51	0.00	37	0.07	33	0.22	63	0.04	34	0.09
Anderszewski 2003		30	0.55	12	0.01	16	0.08	26	0.27	44	0.07	20	0.14
Ashkenazy 1981		55	0.48	13	0.01	40	0.07	39	0.17	50	0.05	36	0.09
Bacha 2000		81	0.34	80	0.00	87	0.02	84	0.02	83	0.03	88	0.02
Badura 1965		61	0.46	73	0.00	21	0.08	24	0.28	42	0.15	14	0.20
Barbosa 1983		86	0.25	74	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	81	0.03	89	0.02
Biret 1990		35	0.54	52	0.00	46	0.04	57	0.04	80	0.04	62	0.04
Blet 2003		43	0.50	83	0.00	63	0.04	65	0.04	86	0.03	78	0.03
Block 1995		77	0.38	86	0.00	80	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.03	90	0.02
Blumental 1952		74	0.40	11	0.01	43	0.05	43	0.09	77	0.02	60	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.51	59	0.00	57	0.05	49	0.05	56	0.05	51	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		59	0.47	25	0.00	60	0.03	69	0.03	52	0.05	52	0.04
Bunin 1987		37	0.52	77	0.00	35	0.07	27	0.25	37	0.20	13	0.22
Bunin 1987b		38	0.52	81	0.00	36	0.07	29	0.25	37	0.22	12	0.23
Chiu 1999		88	0.23	70	0.00	86	0.02	81	0.02	66	0.04	69	0.03
Cohen 1997		87	0.24	84	0.00	84	0.02	83	0.02	49	0.06	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		21	0.59	46	0.00	28	0.07	21	0.33	58	0.05	24	0.13
Csalog 1996		63	0.46	48	0.00	73	0.03	72	0.03	59	0.04	77	0.03
Czerny 1949		14	0.63	15	0.00	13	0.09	9	0.56	36	0.17	11	0.31
Czerny 1990		15	0.62	31	0.00	15	0.08	10	0.50	76	0.03	29	0.12
Duchoud 2007		56	0.48	90	0.00	38	0.07	35	0.20	57	0.04	35	0.09
Ezaki 2006		24	0.58	39	0.00	19	0.09	16	0.45	53	0.05	16	0.15
Falvay 1989		49	0.49	22	0.00	33	0.06	41	0.12	65	0.05	38	0.08
Farrell 1958		60	0.47	68	0.00	61	0.03	71	0.03	62	0.05	53	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		53	0.48	37	0.00	68	0.04	59	0.04	77	0.03	80	0.03
Fliere 1977		9	0.66	45	0.00	17	0.09	13	0.47	77	0.03	25	0.12
Fou 1978		64	0.45	17	0.00	51	0.05	53	0.05	74	0.04	54	0.04
Francois 1956		28	0.56	50	0.00	49	0.06	46	0.06	74	0.03	64	0.04
Friedman 1923		83	0.32	24	0.00	66	0.04	61	0.04	72	0.05	65	0.04
Friedman 1923b		82	0.32	35	0.00	65	0.03	67	0.03	59	0.05	61	0.04
Friedman 1930		58	0.47	30	0.00	32	0.06	34	0.21	42	0.15	15	0.18
Garcia 2007		69	0.42	69	0.00	64	0.03	66	0.03	55	0.05	59	0.04
Garcia 2007b		84	0.29	26	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	68	0.04	87	0.03
Gierzod 1998		12	0.64	87	0.00	20	0.08	17	0.40	54	0.04	23	0.13
Gornostaeva 1994		6	0.67	4	0.03	9	0.15	7	0.62	25	0.30	7	0.43
Groot 1988		52	0.49	5	0.02	12	0.11	36	0.20	80	0.03	41	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		57	0.48	33	0.00	10	0.16	18	0.39	50	0.05	22	0.14
Hatto 1993		79	0.36	88	0.00	71	0.03	70	0.03	76	0.03	85	0.03
Hatto 1997		75	0.39	66	0.00	69	0.03	75	0.03	74	0.04	79	0.03
Horowitz 1949		42	0.50	57	0.00	58	0.04	62	0.04	48	0.05	56	0.04
Indjic 1988		78	0.37	89	0.00	72	0.04	63	0.04	77	0.03	76	0.03
Kapell 1951		13	0.64	63	0.00	26	0.09	20	0.36	65	0.04	27	0.12
Kissin 1993		26	0.56	34	0.00	23	0.07	28	0.25	86	0.03	32	0.09
Kushner 1989		10	0.65	18	0.00	25	0.09	19	0.37	62	0.04	26	0.12
Luisada 1991		71	0.41	56	0.00	79	0.02	82	0.02	72	0.04	66	0.03
Lushtak 2004		66	0.43	91	0.00	34	0.06	32	0.22	75	0.03	39	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		7	0.67	21	0.00	8	0.13	15	0.47	15	0.38	8	0.42
Magaloff 1978		11	0.64	7	0.01	11	0.13	11	0.48	34	0.20	10	0.31
Magin 1975		32	0.55	16	0.00	47	0.04	58	0.04	67	0.03	73	0.03
Michalowski 1933		62	0.46	27	0.00	56	0.05	47	0.05	66	0.05	48	0.05
Milkina 1970		23	0.58	78	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	81	0.04	44	0.06
Mohovich 1999		31	0.55	23	0.00	29	0.06	38	0.19	84	0.03	40	0.08
Moravec 1969		20	0.59	6	0.02	27	0.10	22	0.33	14	0.43	9	0.38
Morozova 2008		44	0.50	32	0.00	24	0.07	25	0.27	78	0.03	33	0.09
Neighaus 1950		47	0.50	61	0.00	52	0.04	54	0.04	52	0.05	63	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		40	0.51	54	0.00	62	0.04	64	0.04	72	0.03	72	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		41	0.51	28	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.12	76	0.03	45	0.06
Osinska 1989		22	0.58	42	0.00	31	0.07	37	0.19	74	0.04	31	0.09
Pachmann 1927		76	0.39	71	0.00	83	0.02	85	0.02	48	0.06	75	0.03
Paderewski 1930		33	0.54	65	0.00	55	0.05	48	0.05	72	0.03	57	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		50	0.49	19	0.00	30	0.06	31	0.23	82	0.03	37	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		72	0.41	82	0.00	77	0.03	73	0.03	73	0.03	70	0.03
Poblocka 1999		19	0.60	60	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.09	61	0.05	42	0.07
Rabcewiczowa 1932		25	0.57	20	0.00	14	0.08	23	0.29	55	0.04	30	0.11
Rachmaninoff 1923		16	0.62	3	0.05	5	0.21	6	0.62	11	0.46	5	0.53
Rangell 2001		65	0.45	41	0.00	67	0.04	60	0.04	82	0.03	84	0.03
Richter 1976		46	0.50	14	0.00	41	0.07	40	0.14	39	0.14	19	0.14
Rosen 1989		34	0.54	64	0.00	54	0.04	55	0.04	81	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931		2	0.78	2	0.07	2	0.43	2	0.83	4	0.86	2	0.84
Rosenthal 1931b		3	0.76	10	0.01	3	0.37	3	0.82	4	0.85	3	0.83
Rosenthal 1931c		1	0.87	1	0.69	1	0.68	1	0.89	4	0.90	1	0.89
Rosenthal 1931d		4	0.76	8	0.01	4	0.32	4	0.81	4	0.82	4	0.81
Rossi 2007		85	0.29	43	0.00	75	0.03	79	0.03	62	0.04	68	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		80	0.35	62	0.00	88	0.03	68	0.03	64	0.04	71	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		73	0.40	47	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	73	0.04	86	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		68	0.43	72	0.00	82	0.03	80	0.03	61	0.05	58	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		18	0.60	55	0.00	22	0.08	14	0.47	52	0.05	17	0.15
Shebanova 2002		54	0.48	58	0.00	70	0.03	77	0.03	88	0.03	81	0.03
Smith 1975		17	0.61	9	0.01	18	0.08	12	0.48	68	0.04	18	0.14
Sokolov 2002		8	0.67	38	0.00	7	0.24	8	0.61	27	0.36	6	0.47
Sztompka 1959		27	0.56	75	0.00	39	0.07	30	0.24	52	0.06	28	0.12
Tomsic 1995		67	0.43	85	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	85	0.03	74	0.03
Uninsky 1932		45	0.50	67	0.00	50	0.05	51	0.05	50	0.06	50	0.05
Uninsky 1971		36	0.53	49	0.00	53	0.04	56	0.04	50	0.06	49	0.05
Wasowski 1980		70	0.42	79	0.00	78	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.04	67	0.03
Zak 1937		48	0.49	36	0.00	59	0.05	52	0.05	71	0.04	55	0.04
Zak 1951		51	0.49	44	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	61	0.05	47	0.05
Average		5	0.70	29	0.00	6	0.20	5	0.68	78	0.03	21	0.14
Random 1		91	-0.10	53	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	20	0.36	46	0.06
Random 2		89	-0.04	40	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	16	0.25	43	0.07
Random 3		90	-0.10	76	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	62	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).