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		37	0.39	69	0.00	56	0.05	55	0.05	69	0.04	57	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		34	0.39	13	0.01	32	0.05	37	0.13	88	0.03	46	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		27	0.40	47	0.00	62	0.03	71	0.03	68	0.04	82	0.03
Bacha 2000		3	0.52	32	0.00	8	0.16	2	0.53	34	0.20	4	0.33
Badura 1965		61	0.31	52	0.00	73	0.03	73	0.03	84	0.03	80	0.03
Barbosa 1983		17	0.46	26	0.00	20	0.08	20	0.33	80	0.04	24	0.11
Biret 1990		15	0.48	54	0.00	18	0.06	19	0.34	85	0.03	29	0.10
Blet 2003		28	0.40	2	0.19	2	0.19	6	0.49	25	0.30	2	0.38
Block 1995		84	0.17	80	0.00	79	0.02	87	0.02	79	0.04	81	0.03
Blumental 1952		1	0.56	4	0.06	3	0.18	12	0.42	54	0.05	13	0.14
Boshniakovich 1969		66	0.30	61	0.00	55	0.05	51	0.05	83	0.04	59	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		50	0.35	53	0.00	61	0.04	66	0.04	66	0.05	51	0.04
Bunin 1987		82	0.21	81	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	73	0.04	83	0.03
Bunin 1987b		83	0.20	84	0.00	83	0.04	63	0.04	71	0.04	54	0.04
Chiu 1999		6	0.52	21	0.01	19	0.08	22	0.30	63	0.04	20	0.11
Cohen 1997		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Cortot 1951		63	0.30	45	0.00	68	0.03	77	0.03	58	0.05	61	0.04
Csalog 1996		51	0.35	31	0.00	11	0.10	14	0.40	43	0.13	6	0.23
Czerny 1949		69	0.29	41	0.00	76	0.04	56	0.04	88	0.02	76	0.03
Czerny 1990		25	0.41	85	0.00	34	0.04	35	0.19	82	0.03	37	0.08
Duchoud 2007		55	0.33	30	0.00	64	0.03	76	0.03	84	0.03	78	0.03
Ezaki 2006		21	0.43	59	0.00	40	0.04	43	0.11	66	0.04	38	0.07
Falvay 1989		10	0.50	3	0.10	4	0.17	3	0.52	37	0.25	3	0.36
Farrell 1958		16	0.47	55	0.00	21	0.06	24	0.29	76	0.04	21	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		46	0.36	66	0.00	39	0.05	44	0.10	85	0.03	49	0.05
Fliere 1977		39	0.38	29	0.00	38	0.04	38	0.13	72	0.04	39	0.07
Fou 1978		8	0.51	74	0.00	15	0.13	9	0.45	83	0.03	18	0.12
Francois 1956		38	0.39	37	0.00	30	0.06	28	0.24	75	0.04	30	0.10
Friedman 1923		62	0.30	57	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	88	0.02	91	0.02
Friedman 1923b		65	0.30	70	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	88	0.02	90	0.02
Friedman 1930		64	0.30	72	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	88	0.02	87	0.02
Garcia 2007		32	0.39	65	0.00	50	0.05	52	0.05	70	0.04	58	0.04
Garcia 2007b		20	0.43	8	0.03	16	0.10	11	0.42	60	0.04	16	0.13
Gierzod 1998		44	0.37	33	0.00	37	0.05	41	0.11	65	0.04	42	0.07
Gornostaeva 1994		56	0.33	43	0.00	49	0.05	50	0.05	78	0.03	60	0.04
Groot 1988		40	0.38	25	0.00	29	0.05	21	0.30	66	0.04	26	0.11
Harasiewicz 1955		35	0.39	22	0.01	53	0.04	59	0.04	85	0.03	85	0.03
Hatto 1993		14	0.48	17	0.01	12	0.11	15	0.40	67	0.04	15	0.13
Hatto 1997		12	0.49	42	0.00	13	0.10	16	0.40	69	0.04	14	0.13
Horowitz 1949		86	0.17	63	0.00	87	0.03	72	0.03	80	0.03	68	0.03
Indjic 1988		13	0.48	35	0.00	14	0.12	17	0.39	74	0.03	23	0.11
Kapell 1951		58	0.32	14	0.01	51	0.06	48	0.06	72	0.04	48	0.05
Kissin 1993		60	0.31	62	0.00	71	0.04	67	0.04	88	0.02	72	0.03
Kushner 1989		23	0.42	10	0.02	25	0.05	13	0.41	79	0.03	22	0.11
Luisada 1991		18	0.46	11	0.01	24	0.05	25	0.28	74	0.03	31	0.09
Lushtak 2004		7	0.52	49	0.00	9	0.12	7	0.47	62	0.05	11	0.15
Malcuzynski 1961		88	0.14	60	0.00	86	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03	67	0.03
Magaloff 1978		42	0.38	27	0.00	31	0.06	32	0.21	86	0.02	45	0.06
Magin 1975		72	0.27	83	0.00	70	0.04	62	0.04	62	0.04	52	0.04
Michalowski 1933		85	0.17	38	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	84	0.03	86	0.02
Milkina 1970		26	0.41	19	0.01	17	0.11	8	0.46	79	0.04	12	0.14
Mohovich 1999		22	0.43	64	0.00	27	0.06	27	0.26	77	0.04	28	0.10
Moravec 1969		41	0.38	9	0.02	47	0.06	46	0.06	56	0.05	47	0.05
Morozova 2008		52	0.34	76	0.00	67	0.04	61	0.04	85	0.03	74	0.03
Neighaus 1950		59	0.32	39	0.00	72	0.04	65	0.04	87	0.03	84	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		73	0.27	73	0.00	69	0.04	64	0.04	81	0.03	66	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		30	0.40	6	0.03	28	0.07	33	0.20	85	0.03	36	0.08
Osinska 1989		29	0.40	77	0.00	36	0.05	31	0.22	78	0.03	34	0.08
Pachmann 1927		81	0.24	75	0.00	85	0.03	80	0.03	77	0.03	70	0.03
Paderewski 1930		49	0.35	16	0.01	23	0.06	29	0.23	55	0.04	27	0.10
Perlemuter 1992		19	0.44	71	0.00	33	0.04	30	0.22	76	0.03	33	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		67	0.30	20	0.01	59	0.03	79	0.03	72	0.04	65	0.03
Poblocka 1999		80	0.24	88	0.00	74	0.04	58	0.04	85	0.03	62	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		24	0.42	50	0.00	10	0.10	18	0.38	76	0.04	17	0.12
Rachmaninoff 1923		57	0.33	89	0.00	66	0.03	74	0.03	87	0.03	64	0.03
Rangell 2001		71	0.27	51	0.00	45	0.06	42	0.11	62	0.04	43	0.07
Richter 1976		87	0.14	90	0.00	88	0.03	75	0.03	83	0.03	69	0.03
Rosen 1989		31	0.40	18	0.01	26	0.06	23	0.30	76	0.04	25	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		78	0.24	48	0.00	52	0.04	57	0.04	73	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		75	0.26	40	0.00	46	0.06	47	0.06	44	0.15	32	0.09
Rosenthal 1931b		70	0.28	23	0.00	42	0.05	34	0.19	38	0.18	8	0.18
Rosenthal 1931c		74	0.27	24	0.00	43	0.05	40	0.12	43	0.13	19	0.12
Rosenthal 1931d		76	0.25	56	0.00	57	0.04	68	0.04	44	0.13	44	0.07
Rossi 2007		11	0.49	15	0.01	22	0.06	26	0.27	42	0.15	7	0.20
Rubinstein 1939		9	0.51	12	0.01	6	0.17	10	0.43	38	0.23	5	0.31
Rubinstein 1952		5	0.52	1	0.27	1	0.27	4	0.52	29	0.36	1	0.43
Rubinstein 1966		2	0.54	5	0.03	7	0.17	5	0.49	60	0.06	9	0.17
Schilhawsky 1960		79	0.24	82	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	88	0.03	73	0.03
Shebanova 2002		47	0.35	78	0.00	58	0.03	69	0.03	86	0.03	75	0.03
Smith 1975		43	0.37	79	0.00	35	0.04	36	0.15	87	0.03	40	0.07
Sokolov 2002		54	0.34	67	0.00	60	0.03	70	0.03	81	0.03	63	0.03
Sztompka 1959		48	0.35	34	0.00	65	0.03	78	0.03	74	0.04	71	0.03
Tomsic 1995		53	0.34	58	0.00	44	0.04	45	0.10	54	0.07	35	0.08
Uninsky 1932		68	0.29	91	0.00	75	0.05	49	0.05	85	0.03	56	0.04
Uninsky 1971		77	0.24	28	0.00	54	0.05	54	0.05	87	0.03	55	0.04
Wasowski 1980		45	0.36	46	0.00	63	0.04	60	0.04	64	0.05	50	0.04
Zak 1937		36	0.39	44	0.00	48	0.05	53	0.05	85	0.03	53	0.04
Zak 1951		33	0.39	68	0.00	41	0.05	39	0.12	82	0.04	41	0.07
Average		4	0.52	7	0.03	5	0.17	1	0.62	71	0.04	10	0.16
Random 1		91	-0.08	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	58	0.03	88	0.02
Random 2		89	0.00	36	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	43	0.08	77	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.08	86	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	74	0.04	89	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).