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		33	0.41	61	0.00	56	0.04	56	0.04	74	0.03	72	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		41	0.39	15	0.01	63	0.05	53	0.05	73	0.03	54	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		25	0.47	11	0.01	53	0.04	59	0.04	84	0.03	74	0.03
Bacha 2000		2	0.67	16	0.01	8	0.13	2	0.51	32	0.15	8	0.28
Badura 1965		51	0.36	51	0.00	76	0.03	70	0.03	83	0.02	84	0.02
Barbosa 1983		8	0.60	18	0.01	14	0.10	13	0.36	59	0.05	19	0.13
Biret 1990		9	0.58	84	0.00	20	0.06	17	0.35	88	0.03	29	0.10
Blet 2003		24	0.47	1	0.21	1	0.21	1	0.53	25	0.29	5	0.39
Block 1995		82	0.11	72	0.00	78	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.02	85	0.02
Blumental 1952		1	0.70	4	0.09	5	0.20	6	0.47	29	0.17	9	0.28
Boshniakovich 1969		74	0.21	42	0.00	77	0.03	71	0.03	86	0.02	86	0.02
Brailowsky 1960		28	0.45	73	0.00	46	0.05	51	0.05	87	0.02	59	0.03
Bunin 1987		80	0.12	21	0.01	85	0.03	72	0.03	88	0.02	87	0.02
Bunin 1987b		83	0.11	32	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	79	0.03	77	0.02
Chiu 1999		5	0.65	13	0.01	19	0.07	32	0.26	75	0.03	32	0.09
Cohen 1997		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Cortot 1951		63	0.29	63	0.00	69	0.03	73	0.03	88	0.02	90	0.02
Csalog 1996		44	0.38	43	0.00	6	0.12	8	0.45	22	0.32	6	0.38
Czerny 1949		73	0.22	33	0.00	80	0.04	65	0.04	84	0.03	71	0.03
Czerny 1990		26	0.46	20	0.01	22	0.06	23	0.30	78	0.03	36	0.09
Duchoud 2007		53	0.35	14	0.01	31	0.06	44	0.10	68	0.03	46	0.05
Ezaki 2006		23	0.47	88	0.00	54	0.04	60	0.04	65	0.04	48	0.04
Falvay 1989		13	0.55	3	0.14	3	0.16	7	0.46	26	0.43	3	0.44
Farrell 1958		10	0.57	75	0.00	24	0.06	20	0.31	70	0.04	22	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		27	0.45	24	0.00	15	0.07	21	0.31	60	0.04	25	0.11
Fliere 1977		47	0.37	46	0.00	51	0.06	47	0.06	85	0.03	49	0.04
Fou 1978		7	0.61	54	0.00	10	0.08	5	0.48	73	0.04	17	0.14
Francois 1956		31	0.42	59	0.00	40	0.06	35	0.22	81	0.03	39	0.08
Friedman 1923		54	0.35	85	0.00	83	0.03	68	0.03	88	0.02	91	0.02
Friedman 1923b		55	0.35	81	0.00	81	0.02	83	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02
Friedman 1930		57	0.33	87	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	88	0.02	82	0.02
Garcia 2007		29	0.44	28	0.00	21	0.06	31	0.26	82	0.03	35	0.09
Garcia 2007b		32	0.41	10	0.02	17	0.07	33	0.25	77	0.04	31	0.10
Gierzod 1998		59	0.31	60	0.00	59	0.04	58	0.04	73	0.03	73	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		65	0.29	64	0.00	48	0.07	46	0.07	65	0.04	47	0.05
Groot 1988		52	0.36	36	0.00	47	0.05	50	0.05	79	0.03	57	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		45	0.38	74	0.00	75	0.03	77	0.03	85	0.03	76	0.03
Hatto 1993		16	0.55	53	0.00	27	0.09	27	0.27	74	0.04	30	0.10
Hatto 1997		15	0.55	76	0.00	28	0.07	29	0.27	81	0.04	27	0.10
Horowitz 1949		85	0.10	77	0.00	88	0.02	85	0.02	88	0.02	79	0.02
Indjic 1988		17	0.54	47	0.00	29	0.07	30	0.26	78	0.04	26	0.10
Kapell 1951		66	0.27	89	0.00	41	0.07	41	0.15	75	0.03	41	0.07
Kissin 1993		61	0.31	12	0.01	55	0.04	64	0.04	58	0.04	53	0.04
Kushner 1989		38	0.40	90	0.00	42	0.08	40	0.16	83	0.03	40	0.07
Luisada 1991		18	0.51	29	0.00	36	0.05	36	0.21	83	0.03	37	0.08
Lushtak 2004		3	0.66	38	0.00	9	0.13	10	0.43	50	0.06	15	0.16
Malcuzynski 1961		89	-0.02	69	0.00	86	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.02	78	0.02
Magaloff 1978		30	0.43	27	0.00	39	0.07	37	0.21	78	0.04	33	0.09
Magin 1975		78	0.17	82	0.00	74	0.03	82	0.03	74	0.03	64	0.03
Michalowski 1933		77	0.18	34	0.00	71	0.03	79	0.03	82	0.03	67	0.03
Milkina 1970		48	0.37	23	0.01	43	0.06	42	0.13	67	0.04	42	0.07
Mohovich 1999		21	0.50	52	0.00	23	0.06	18	0.34	84	0.04	20	0.12
Moravec 1969		35	0.40	6	0.03	30	0.05	14	0.35	43	0.13	11	0.21
Morozova 2008		42	0.38	55	0.00	58	0.04	62	0.04	89	0.02	69	0.03
Neighaus 1950		60	0.31	57	0.00	73	0.03	81	0.03	88	0.02	89	0.02
Niedzielski 1931		70	0.25	44	0.00	61	0.04	66	0.04	88	0.02	63	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		43	0.38	7	0.03	52	0.04	54	0.04	84	0.03	66	0.03
Osinska 1989		37	0.40	78	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.10	86	0.03	44	0.05
Pachmann 1927		64	0.29	48	0.00	64	0.05	52	0.05	87	0.02	65	0.03
Paderewski 1930		22	0.47	45	0.00	13	0.09	19	0.32	55	0.04	23	0.11
Perlemuter 1992		14	0.55	70	0.00	16	0.08	12	0.38	83	0.03	21	0.11
Pierdomenico 2008		84	0.10	35	0.00	67	0.03	67	0.03	84	0.03	62	0.03
Poblocka 1999		79	0.15	79	0.00	62	0.04	57	0.04	82	0.03	60	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		20	0.51	65	0.00	11	0.08	11	0.39	55	0.05	16	0.14
Rachmaninoff 1923		49	0.37	62	0.00	66	0.03	69	0.03	77	0.03	61	0.03
Rangell 2001		86	0.06	30	0.00	65	0.04	63	0.04	82	0.03	75	0.03
Richter 1976		87	0.02	80	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.02	80	0.02
Rosen 1989		40	0.39	25	0.00	18	0.07	16	0.35	83	0.03	28	0.10
Rosenthal 1930		76	0.20	9	0.02	33	0.05	39	0.17	71	0.03	43	0.07
Rosenthal 1931		72	0.23	49	0.00	34	0.06	28	0.27	39	0.16	12	0.21
Rosenthal 1931b		69	0.25	26	0.00	32	0.05	24	0.29	33	0.17	10	0.22
Rosenthal 1931c		67	0.26	17	0.01	12	0.08	15	0.35	25	0.28	7	0.31
Rosenthal 1931d		71	0.24	91	0.00	38	0.06	34	0.24	34	0.17	13	0.20
Rossi 2007		12	0.57	22	0.01	25	0.07	25	0.29	45	0.10	14	0.17
Rubinstein 1939		4	0.65	5	0.04	4	0.18	4	0.49	9	0.43	2	0.46
Rubinstein 1952		11	0.57	2	0.18	2	0.19	3	0.50	11	0.50	1	0.50
Rubinstein 1966		6	0.62	8	0.03	7	0.13	9	0.44	24	0.36	4	0.40
Schilhawsky 1960		75	0.21	50	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.02	81	0.02
Shebanova 2002		58	0.33	67	0.00	57	0.04	61	0.04	73	0.04	55	0.04
Smith 1975		39	0.39	66	0.00	35	0.05	26	0.29	79	0.03	34	0.09
Sokolov 2002		46	0.37	19	0.01	45	0.05	45	0.10	83	0.03	45	0.05
Sztompka 1959		50	0.36	58	0.00	60	0.04	55	0.04	75	0.04	52	0.04
Tomsic 1995		62	0.30	37	0.00	37	0.05	38	0.17	45	0.10	18	0.13
Uninsky 1932		68	0.25	86	0.00	68	0.03	75	0.03	86	0.03	70	0.03
Uninsky 1971		81	0.11	39	0.00	70	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03	68	0.03
Wasowski 1980		56	0.33	68	0.00	72	0.03	78	0.03	82	0.03	58	0.03
Zak 1937		34	0.41	83	0.00	49	0.06	48	0.06	78	0.03	50	0.04
Zak 1951		36	0.40	40	0.00	50	0.05	49	0.05	78	0.03	51	0.04
Average		19	0.51	56	0.00	26	0.07	22	0.30	65	0.04	24	0.11
Random 1		91	-0.21	71	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	35	0.15	56	0.04
Random 2		88	0.01	41	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	62	0.03	83	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.11	31	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	22	0.36	38	0.08

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).