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		14	0.39	18	0.01	14	0.12	11	0.59	17	0.51	15	0.55
Anderszewski 2003		45	0.28	65	0.00	20	0.12	29	0.43	21	0.46	21	0.44
Ashkenazy 1981		60	0.22	71	0.00	69	0.03	68	0.03	71	0.05	67	0.04
Bacha 2000		56	0.25	74	0.00	40	0.08	41	0.20	50	0.06	42	0.11
Badura 1965		59	0.24	56	0.00	38	0.10	38	0.27	42	0.13	32	0.19
Barbosa 1983		54	0.25	75	0.00	51	0.06	56	0.06	55	0.05	59	0.05
Biret 1990		20	0.37	9	0.03	9	0.12	16	0.56	14	0.63	12	0.59
Blet 2003		78	0.15	57	0.00	88	0.02	86	0.02	83	0.02	88	0.02
Block 1995		28	0.33	83	0.00	41	0.07	40	0.22	61	0.05	45	0.10
Blumental 1952		62	0.22	66	0.00	44	0.05	46	0.11	64	0.05	51	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		48	0.27	84	0.00	47	0.06	53	0.06	44	0.13	46	0.09
Brailowsky 1960		34	0.31	85	0.00	35	0.08	35	0.36	29	0.41	26	0.38
Bunin 1987		80	0.15	67	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	72	0.04	82	0.03
Bunin 1987b		79	0.15	51	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	75	0.04	72	0.03
Chiu 1999		33	0.31	61	0.00	61	0.05	60	0.05	83	0.03	65	0.04
Cohen 1997		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Cortot 1951		9	0.42	13	0.01	15	0.12	9	0.62	12	0.60	11	0.61
Csalog 1996		53	0.25	40	0.00	66	0.03	65	0.03	63	0.05	66	0.04
Czerny 1949		7	0.43	20	0.00	7	0.12	7	0.67	7	0.84	5	0.75
Czerny 1990		74	0.16	53	0.00	84	0.03	67	0.03	71	0.03	83	0.03
Duchoud 2007		49	0.27	23	0.00	50	0.06	55	0.06	61	0.05	61	0.05
Ezaki 2006		2	0.54	2	0.14	2	0.31	2	0.76	4	0.76	3	0.76
Falvay 1989		24	0.35	42	0.00	32	0.12	31	0.41	26	0.35	27	0.38
Farrell 1958		38	0.30	78	0.00	43	0.07	43	0.16	43	0.11	38	0.13
Ferenczy 1958		37	0.31	24	0.00	13	0.16	22	0.51	16	0.75	10	0.62
Fliere 1977		55	0.25	68	0.00	63	0.04	63	0.04	57	0.05	64	0.04
Fou 1978		46	0.28	69	0.00	42	0.07	42	0.17	78	0.03	49	0.07
Francois 1956		4	0.52	8	0.03	3	0.29	3	0.75	1	0.84	2	0.79
Friedman 1923		75	0.16	86	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	74	0.04	91	0.02
Friedman 1923b		77	0.16	87	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	74	0.04	90	0.02
Friedman 1930		61	0.22	38	0.00	75	0.02	78	0.02	73	0.04	80	0.03
Garcia 2007		64	0.20	63	0.00	46	0.05	58	0.05	47	0.06	62	0.05
Garcia 2007b		68	0.19	27	0.00	60	0.04	62	0.04	57	0.06	63	0.05
Gierzod 1998		65	0.20	72	0.00	30	0.09	37	0.34	62	0.05	40	0.13
Gornostaeva 1994		6	0.47	7	0.03	10	0.11	8	0.64	12	0.66	7	0.65
Groot 1988		41	0.30	73	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.11	69	0.05	53	0.07
Harasiewicz 1955		16	0.38	11	0.02	26	0.12	25	0.46	38	0.19	30	0.30
Hatto 1993		67	0.19	88	0.00	74	0.03	69	0.03	76	0.04	84	0.03
Hatto 1997		30	0.32	39	0.00	36	0.09	34	0.38	50	0.06	36	0.15
Horowitz 1949		84	0.14	47	0.00	67	0.03	71	0.03	78	0.04	74	0.03
Indjic 1988		76	0.16	70	0.00	82	0.02	77	0.02	77	0.04	78	0.03
Kapell 1951		83	0.14	89	0.00	77	0.02	83	0.02	79	0.04	70	0.03
Kissin 1993		89	0.08	36	0.00	79	0.02	82	0.02	82	0.03	87	0.02
Kushner 1989		31	0.31	43	0.00	55	0.11	45	0.11	75	0.04	50	0.07
Luisada 1991		66	0.20	64	0.00	81	0.02	80	0.02	82	0.03	85	0.02
Lushtak 2004		23	0.35	22	0.00	28	0.10	28	0.44	18	0.41	24	0.42
Malcuzynski 1961		39	0.30	28	0.00	37	0.10	36	0.34	58	0.05	39	0.13
Magaloff 1978		17	0.38	32	0.00	34	0.12	33	0.39	42	0.19	31	0.27
Magin 1975		87	0.12	26	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	76	0.04	86	0.02
Michalowski 1933		73	0.17	15	0.01	72	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.03	77	0.03
Milkina 1970		52	0.25	12	0.01	25	0.11	26	0.45	23	0.44	20	0.44
Mohovich 1999		25	0.34	31	0.00	24	0.09	19	0.54	25	0.35	22	0.43
Moravec 1969		44	0.28	48	0.00	39	0.07	39	0.25	57	0.04	43	0.10
Morozova 2008		43	0.28	59	0.00	56	0.06	51	0.06	70	0.04	60	0.05
Neighaus 1950		10	0.42	14	0.01	16	0.15	10	0.59	30	0.31	23	0.43
Niedzielski 1931		72	0.17	44	0.00	78	0.02	84	0.02	65	0.05	69	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		15	0.39	21	0.00	29	0.09	32	0.41	52	0.05	37	0.14
Osinska 1989		8	0.43	10	0.02	18	0.15	14	0.58	19	0.56	13	0.57
Pachmann 1927		35	0.31	52	0.00	49	0.06	52	0.06	65	0.06	55	0.06
Paderewski 1930		85	0.13	76	0.00	83	0.03	73	0.03	86	0.03	76	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		36	0.31	77	0.00	52	0.07	49	0.07	75	0.04	56	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		51	0.25	58	0.00	53	0.07	48	0.07	44	0.10	48	0.08
Poblocka 1999		50	0.25	62	0.00	57	0.06	50	0.06	60	0.05	57	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		5	0.49	4	0.05	4	0.23	4	0.71	3	0.81	4	0.76
Rachmaninoff 1923		69	0.19	45	0.00	62	0.04	61	0.04	86	0.03	68	0.03
Rangell 2001		42	0.30	19	0.00	23	0.10	23	0.49	26	0.33	25	0.40
Richter 1976		57	0.25	46	0.00	76	0.02	81	0.02	78	0.04	75	0.03
Rosen 1989		11	0.41	16	0.01	22	0.10	12	0.59	37	0.34	19	0.45
Rosenthal 1930		27	0.33	49	0.00	33	0.14	27	0.44	19	0.47	18	0.45
Rosenthal 1931		26	0.34	54	0.00	8	0.15	17	0.56	9	0.73	8	0.64
Rosenthal 1931b		32	0.31	17	0.01	11	0.12	13	0.58	11	0.71	9	0.64
Rosenthal 1931c		12	0.40	6	0.04	6	0.14	5	0.69	8	0.69	6	0.69
Rosenthal 1931d		47	0.27	29	0.00	19	0.10	21	0.52	10	0.62	14	0.57
Rossi 2007		71	0.18	41	0.00	71	0.03	75	0.03	40	0.12	54	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		22	0.35	34	0.00	31	0.09	30	0.42	25	0.27	29	0.34
Rubinstein 1952		21	0.36	5	0.05	17	0.13	18	0.54	21	0.47	16	0.50
Rubinstein 1966		19	0.37	30	0.00	21	0.10	15	0.56	29	0.26	28	0.38
Schilhawsky 1960		82	0.14	79	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	71	0.04	79	0.03
Shebanova 2002		58	0.24	80	0.00	73	0.03	72	0.03	74	0.04	81	0.03
Smith 1975		1	0.58	1	0.36	1	0.35	1	0.83	1	0.87	1	0.85
Sokolov 2002		63	0.21	55	0.00	58	0.06	54	0.06	38	0.23	41	0.12
Sztompka 1959		29	0.32	33	0.00	48	0.06	57	0.06	63	0.05	58	0.05
Tomsic 1995		13	0.39	35	0.00	12	0.16	20	0.52	13	0.45	17	0.48
Uninsky 1932		70	0.19	81	0.00	80	0.02	79	0.02	84	0.03	89	0.02
Uninsky 1971		18	0.38	37	0.00	27	0.10	24	0.47	48	0.07	33	0.18
Wasowski 1980		40	0.30	25	0.00	54	0.10	47	0.10	50	0.07	47	0.08
Zak 1937		86	0.12	90	0.00	68	0.03	70	0.03	73	0.03	71	0.03
Zak 1951		81	0.14	91	0.00	64	0.04	64	0.04	76	0.03	73	0.03
Average		3	0.52	3	0.11	5	0.20	6	0.68	55	0.05	34	0.18
Random 1		91	0.00	82	0.00	70	0.02	76	0.02	34	0.23	52	0.07
Random 2		88	0.09	50	0.00	65	0.03	66	0.03	22	0.35	44	0.10
Random 3		90	0.06	60	0.00	59	0.05	59	0.05	4	0.64	35	0.18

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).