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		29	0.34	73	0.00	33	0.08	27	0.49	47	0.06	32	0.17
Anderszewski 2003		42	0.31	4	0.03	9	0.11	29	0.48	50	0.07	28	0.18
Ashkenazy 1981		67	0.25	60	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	84	0.03	85	0.03
Bacha 2000		44	0.30	45	0.00	37	0.08	35	0.34	37	0.20	23	0.26
Badura 1965		80	0.22	48	0.00	58	0.04	66	0.04	75	0.03	83	0.03
Barbosa 1983		50	0.29	78	0.00	50	0.07	49	0.07	68	0.05	51	0.06
Biret 1990		16	0.37	39	0.00	20	0.08	18	0.57	30	0.38	10	0.47
Blet 2003		77	0.23	53	0.00	80	0.03	67	0.03	79	0.03	79	0.03
Block 1995		65	0.25	81	0.00	66	0.04	57	0.04	88	0.03	84	0.03
Blumental 1952		52	0.28	44	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.13	78	0.04	49	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.31	84	0.00	34	0.08	36	0.30	55	0.06	39	0.13
Brailowsky 1960		47	0.29	37	0.00	44	0.08	43	0.20	58	0.06	40	0.11
Bunin 1987		75	0.23	83	0.00	76	0.03	73	0.03	66	0.04	86	0.03
Bunin 1987b		78	0.22	51	0.00	77	0.03	70	0.03	88	0.03	73	0.03
Chiu 1999		36	0.31	26	0.00	51	0.06	50	0.06	77	0.04	56	0.05
Cohen 1997		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Cortot 1951		17	0.36	32	0.00	21	0.07	12	0.61	11	0.62	5	0.61
Csalog 1996		58	0.26	61	0.00	67	0.04	65	0.04	72	0.04	64	0.04
Czerny 1949		11	0.38	15	0.01	14	0.09	13	0.59	25	0.53	7	0.56
Czerny 1990		68	0.25	74	0.00	71	0.03	82	0.03	84	0.03	87	0.03
Duchoud 2007		63	0.25	36	0.00	57	0.03	71	0.03	72	0.04	82	0.03
Ezaki 2006		3	0.44	2	0.15	2	0.21	5	0.71	20	0.54	4	0.62
Falvay 1989		13	0.38	16	0.01	22	0.08	20	0.55	44	0.10	24	0.23
Farrell 1958		35	0.31	52	0.00	47	0.08	47	0.08	49	0.06	48	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		57	0.27	58	0.00	39	0.09	37	0.28	31	0.51	14	0.38
Fliere 1977		51	0.29	40	0.00	56	0.04	64	0.04	87	0.03	67	0.03
Fou 1978		38	0.31	75	0.00	49	0.06	53	0.06	72	0.04	57	0.05
Francois 1956		4	0.43	3	0.06	3	0.21	3	0.73	7	0.76	1	0.74
Friedman 1923		84	0.18	80	0.00	86	0.03	80	0.03	77	0.03	88	0.03
Friedman 1923b		85	0.18	86	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02	91	0.02
Friedman 1930		73	0.24	90	0.00	70	0.03	68	0.03	79	0.03	81	0.03
Garcia 2007		61	0.26	42	0.00	53	0.06	52	0.06	44	0.10	47	0.08
Garcia 2007b		33	0.32	18	0.01	30	0.07	32	0.42	34	0.20	22	0.29
Gierzod 1998		45	0.30	79	0.00	38	0.09	33	0.40	50	0.07	33	0.17
Gornostaeva 1994		6	0.41	13	0.01	6	0.11	8	0.63	25	0.46	9	0.54
Groot 1988		23	0.35	57	0.00	25	0.08	22	0.54	45	0.10	25	0.23
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.38	10	0.01	26	0.09	28	0.49	69	0.05	37	0.16
Hatto 1993		54	0.28	82	0.00	48	0.09	46	0.09	75	0.04	54	0.06
Hatto 1997		27	0.34	11	0.01	15	0.10	16	0.58	56	0.05	31	0.17
Horowitz 1949		83	0.19	66	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	66	0.04	74	0.03
Indjic 1988		60	0.26	87	0.00	52	0.07	48	0.07	60	0.06	50	0.06
Kapell 1951		72	0.24	33	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.03	71	0.03
Kissin 1993		87	0.17	89	0.00	87	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.04	78	0.03
Kushner 1989		19	0.36	17	0.01	36	0.07	40	0.24	82	0.03	44	0.08
Luisada 1991		53	0.28	71	0.00	63	0.03	69	0.03	83	0.03	66	0.03
Lushtak 2004		21	0.35	59	0.00	17	0.10	14	0.58	57	0.05	34	0.17
Malcuzynski 1961		46	0.30	64	0.00	41	0.08	44	0.20	78	0.03	45	0.08
Magaloff 1978		24	0.34	25	0.00	32	0.08	34	0.39	73	0.03	42	0.11
Magin 1975		69	0.24	41	0.00	73	0.03	85	0.03	83	0.03	70	0.03
Michalowski 1933		88	0.15	88	0.00	88	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.03	89	0.02
Milkina 1970		28	0.34	5	0.02	8	0.14	7	0.64	38	0.29	13	0.43
Mohovich 1999		20	0.35	31	0.00	28	0.12	21	0.55	48	0.05	35	0.17
Moravec 1969		32	0.32	55	0.00	46	0.06	51	0.06	56	0.05	55	0.05
Morozova 2008		56	0.27	70	0.00	68	0.04	61	0.04	87	0.02	80	0.03
Neighaus 1950		26	0.34	22	0.01	27	0.12	31	0.47	39	0.20	20	0.31
Niedzielski 1931		76	0.23	72	0.00	65	0.04	60	0.04	49	0.05	61	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		18	0.36	30	0.00	16	0.10	25	0.51	68	0.04	38	0.14
Osinska 1989		7	0.40	24	0.00	12	0.10	15	0.58	39	0.21	16	0.35
Pachmann 1927		70	0.24	56	0.00	83	0.03	79	0.03	81	0.03	77	0.03
Paderewski 1930		86	0.17	62	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	63	0.04	76	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		37	0.31	35	0.00	54	0.05	54	0.05	76	0.04	59	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		31	0.33	27	0.00	40	0.09	42	0.22	33	0.20	26	0.21
Poblocka 1999		66	0.25	49	0.00	74	0.03	77	0.03	80	0.03	68	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		5	0.41	6	0.02	5	0.29	4	0.72	15	0.56	3	0.63
Rachmaninoff 1923		74	0.24	77	0.00	64	0.04	62	0.04	62	0.04	60	0.04
Rangell 2001		22	0.35	21	0.01	24	0.09	23	0.53	32	0.39	11	0.45
Richter 1976		59	0.26	68	0.00	79	0.03	75	0.03	85	0.03	75	0.03
Rosen 1989		14	0.38	9	0.01	18	0.11	11	0.62	48	0.05	30	0.18
Rosenthal 1930		48	0.29	28	0.00	42	0.08	38	0.24	33	0.38	21	0.30
Rosenthal 1931		43	0.30	46	0.00	23	0.08	24	0.53	20	0.57	8	0.55
Rosenthal 1931b		41	0.31	20	0.01	19	0.09	17	0.58	16	0.59	6	0.58
Rosenthal 1931c		34	0.32	8	0.02	29	0.12	30	0.47	24	0.43	12	0.45
Rosenthal 1931d		62	0.26	29	0.00	43	0.10	41	0.22	19	0.43	19	0.31
Rossi 2007		55	0.28	47	0.00	61	0.04	59	0.04	31	0.30	41	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		30	0.34	54	0.00	31	0.08	26	0.49	52	0.05	36	0.16
Rubinstein 1952		10	0.39	34	0.00	11	0.10	10	0.62	43	0.21	15	0.36
Rubinstein 1966		8	0.40	19	0.01	7	0.12	9	0.63	36	0.18	17	0.34
Schilhawsky 1960		82	0.21	76	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.03	90	0.02
Shebanova 2002		49	0.29	50	0.00	62	0.05	55	0.05	78	0.05	58	0.05
Smith 1975		2	0.45	7	0.02	4	0.24	2	0.79	8	0.63	2	0.71
Sokolov 2002		81	0.21	43	0.00	82	0.03	72	0.03	72	0.03	69	0.03
Sztompka 1959		40	0.31	63	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	75	0.04	63	0.04
Tomsic 1995		15	0.37	12	0.01	13	0.08	19	0.56	39	0.19	18	0.33
Uninsky 1932		64	0.25	69	0.00	60	0.04	63	0.04	67	0.04	65	0.04
Uninsky 1971		9	0.40	23	0.00	10	0.11	6	0.68	62	0.05	27	0.18
Wasowski 1980		25	0.34	14	0.01	35	0.08	39	0.24	79	0.04	43	0.10
Zak 1937		79	0.22	85	0.00	69	0.03	78	0.03	81	0.04	72	0.03
Zak 1951		71	0.24	91	0.00	59	0.04	58	0.04	66	0.04	62	0.04
Average		1	0.51	1	0.48	1	0.47	1	0.84	76	0.04	29	0.18
Random 1		90	-0.01	67	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	26	0.32	52	0.06
Random 2		89	0.07	38	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	23	0.32	46	0.08
Random 3		91	-0.01	65	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	20	0.32	53	0.06

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).