Cohen 1997

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

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).