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		62	0.28	47	0.00	75	0.04	66	0.04	60	0.04	61	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		39	0.34	10	0.02	24	0.05	40	0.10	79	0.03	45	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		10	0.49	6	0.04	20	0.06	24	0.24	61	0.04	25	0.10
Bacha 2000		1	0.60	4	0.06	4	0.22	3	0.54	23	0.32	4	0.42
Badura 1965		65	0.26	18	0.01	70	0.03	83	0.03	88	0.02	89	0.02
Barbosa 1983		23	0.42	75	0.00	27	0.06	23	0.25	68	0.04	24	0.10
Biret 1990		7	0.50	69	0.00	11	0.08	13	0.38	70	0.04	17	0.12
Blet 2003		43	0.33	16	0.01	34	0.05	37	0.12	88	0.02	46	0.05
Block 1995		72	0.23	12	0.02	30	0.05	38	0.11	76	0.03	40	0.06
Blumental 1952		24	0.42	51	0.00	33	0.05	36	0.13	65	0.03	41	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		69	0.25	77	0.00	69	0.04	69	0.04	77	0.03	81	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		8	0.50	52	0.00	7	0.11	8	0.44	58	0.05	9	0.15
Bunin 1987		78	0.17	27	0.00	83	0.04	65	0.04	83	0.03	82	0.03
Bunin 1987b		80	0.16	61	0.00	82	0.02	88	0.02	83	0.03	85	0.02
Chiu 1999		9	0.49	13	0.01	21	0.06	17	0.31	72	0.03	22	0.10
Cohen 1997		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Cortot 1951		61	0.29	60	0.00	72	0.04	71	0.04	73	0.04	64	0.04
Csalog 1996		13	0.47	5	0.05	3	0.24	2	0.56	12	0.45	2	0.50
Czerny 1949		82	0.15	86	0.00	84	0.04	68	0.04	78	0.04	60	0.04
Czerny 1990		56	0.30	62	0.00	62	0.04	70	0.04	64	0.04	63	0.04
Duchoud 2007		49	0.32	34	0.00	65	0.03	78	0.03	73	0.03	78	0.03
Ezaki 2006		36	0.36	43	0.00	59	0.04	64	0.04	64	0.04	50	0.04
Falvay 1989		5	0.51	3	0.15	5	0.23	6	0.49	39	0.24	5	0.34
Farrell 1958		11	0.48	50	0.00	19	0.06	16	0.31	78	0.03	23	0.10
Ferenczy 1958		26	0.40	19	0.01	26	0.05	27	0.21	39	0.11	10	0.15
Fliere 1977		35	0.36	37	0.00	45	0.04	41	0.08	82	0.03	43	0.05
Fou 1978		4	0.53	41	0.00	12	0.10	4	0.51	77	0.04	11	0.14
Francois 1956		54	0.31	15	0.01	42	0.04	46	0.07	78	0.03	49	0.05
Friedman 1923		89	0.06	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01
Friedman 1923b		88	0.06	91	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	91	0.01	90	0.01
Friedman 1930		76	0.18	82	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02
Garcia 2007		57	0.30	55	0.00	68	0.03	76	0.03	77	0.03	79	0.03
Garcia 2007b		59	0.29	39	0.00	55	0.06	50	0.06	79	0.03	65	0.04
Gierzod 1998		29	0.39	26	0.00	35	0.05	34	0.14	86	0.03	39	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		63	0.28	63	0.00	56	0.04	58	0.04	61	0.04	62	0.04
Groot 1988		37	0.35	68	0.00	43	0.04	45	0.07	58	0.04	48	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		53	0.31	24	0.01	61	0.04	63	0.04	76	0.03	84	0.03
Hatto 1993		19	0.43	57	0.00	38	0.06	32	0.15	85	0.03	38	0.07
Hatto 1997		20	0.43	23	0.01	37	0.05	29	0.20	62	0.04	28	0.09
Horowitz 1949		81	0.15	88	0.00	80	0.02	86	0.02	71	0.03	86	0.02
Indjic 1988		22	0.42	87	0.00	39	0.06	35	0.13	67	0.04	36	0.07
Kapell 1951		52	0.31	90	0.00	36	0.06	33	0.15	84	0.03	35	0.07
Kissin 1993		40	0.34	74	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	61	0.04	58	0.04
Kushner 1989		33	0.37	22	0.01	31	0.05	31	0.17	87	0.03	34	0.07
Luisada 1991		27	0.40	53	0.00	44	0.04	43	0.08	82	0.03	42	0.05
Lushtak 2004		3	0.53	48	0.00	8	0.09	9	0.41	73	0.03	20	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		84	0.14	54	0.00	85	0.03	79	0.03	87	0.03	73	0.03
Magaloff 1978		15	0.46	46	0.00	15	0.08	10	0.39	70	0.04	15	0.12
Magin 1975		77	0.18	21	0.01	77	0.04	57	0.04	69	0.03	72	0.03
Michalowski 1933		75	0.18	20	0.01	74	0.04	60	0.04	83	0.03	75	0.03
Milkina 1970		18	0.45	8	0.03	9	0.08	7	0.48	45	0.09	8	0.21
Mohovich 1999		30	0.39	72	0.00	40	0.05	39	0.11	69	0.04	37	0.07
Moravec 1969		38	0.35	25	0.01	48	0.05	52	0.05	65	0.03	51	0.04
Morozova 2008		66	0.26	67	0.00	63	0.03	80	0.03	61	0.04	77	0.03
Neighaus 1950		58	0.30	79	0.00	66	0.03	82	0.03	76	0.04	83	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		79	0.17	44	0.00	67	0.03	73	0.03	56	0.04	71	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		28	0.39	14	0.01	46	0.04	59	0.04	60	0.04	57	0.04
Osinska 1989		25	0.41	58	0.00	17	0.06	18	0.31	77	0.03	21	0.10
Pachmann 1927		34	0.36	30	0.00	29	0.06	28	0.21	43	0.10	12	0.14
Paderewski 1930		17	0.45	71	0.00	10	0.07	12	0.38	65	0.03	18	0.11
Perlemuter 1992		32	0.38	83	0.00	50	0.05	51	0.05	88	0.02	66	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		73	0.22	80	0.00	64	0.04	72	0.04	87	0.02	70	0.03
Poblocka 1999		46	0.32	42	0.00	32	0.05	30	0.18	70	0.04	32	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		41	0.34	38	0.00	47	0.06	48	0.06	81	0.03	53	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		85	0.13	65	0.00	86	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.03	69	0.03
Rangell 2001		68	0.25	40	0.00	41	0.04	42	0.08	73	0.03	47	0.05
Richter 1976		74	0.22	29	0.00	60	0.04	56	0.04	79	0.03	74	0.03
Rosen 1989		21	0.42	11	0.02	14	0.09	19	0.30	76	0.03	30	0.09
Rosenthal 1930		70	0.24	56	0.00	54	0.06	49	0.06	83	0.02	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		60	0.29	35	0.00	25	0.06	25	0.23	72	0.03	33	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		47	0.32	31	0.00	18	0.05	22	0.26	45	0.08	14	0.14
Rosenthal 1931c		50	0.31	84	0.00	28	0.05	26	0.23	51	0.04	26	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		42	0.33	66	0.00	16	0.09	20	0.30	32	0.18	7	0.23
Rossi 2007		67	0.25	81	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	81	0.03	68	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		6	0.51	1	0.19	1	0.19	5	0.49	6	0.46	3	0.47
Rubinstein 1952		2	0.54	2	0.17	2	0.27	1	0.58	16	0.51	1	0.54
Rubinstein 1966		12	0.48	17	0.01	6	0.13	11	0.38	37	0.23	6	0.30
Schilhawsky 1960		71	0.24	59	0.00	76	0.05	54	0.05	86	0.03	59	0.04
Shebanova 2002		16	0.45	7	0.03	13	0.09	15	0.32	47	0.06	13	0.14
Smith 1975		31	0.39	45	0.00	23	0.06	21	0.30	84	0.03	27	0.09
Sokolov 2002		48	0.32	36	0.00	58	0.03	75	0.03	79	0.03	67	0.03
Sztompka 1959		64	0.27	85	0.00	78	0.04	55	0.04	78	0.04	56	0.04
Tomsic 1995		45	0.32	73	0.00	51	0.04	61	0.04	54	0.05	55	0.04
Uninsky 1932		86	0.11	78	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	88	0.02	88	0.02
Uninsky 1971		83	0.15	9	0.02	73	0.04	62	0.04	82	0.03	76	0.03
Wasowski 1980		55	0.30	32	0.00	57	0.04	67	0.04	68	0.04	52	0.04
Zak 1937		44	0.33	76	0.00	52	0.06	47	0.06	80	0.03	54	0.04
Zak 1951		51	0.31	70	0.00	53	0.08	44	0.08	81	0.03	44	0.05
Average		14	0.46	28	0.00	22	0.06	14	0.33	61	0.04	19	0.11
Random 1		91	-0.08	64	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	16	0.37	31	0.09
Random 2		90	0.00	49	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	15	0.27	29	0.09
Random 3		87	0.08	33	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	10	0.45	16	0.12

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).