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		64	0.23	54	0.00	72	0.03	76	0.03	76	0.03	75	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		44	0.30	28	0.00	29	0.07	33	0.22	61	0.03	38	0.08
Ashkenazy 1981		11	0.44	10	0.04	16	0.08	24	0.33	78	0.03	33	0.10
Bacha 2000		13	0.43	81	0.00	27	0.08	25	0.33	31	0.33	7	0.33
Badura 1965		73	0.20	68	0.00	66	0.04	60	0.04	77	0.03	77	0.03
Barbosa 1983		60	0.26	20	0.01	36	0.05	37	0.15	68	0.04	37	0.08
Biret 1990		14	0.42	43	0.00	12	0.13	11	0.48	41	0.15	11	0.27
Blet 2003		78	0.18	71	0.00	80	0.02	84	0.02	83	0.03	83	0.02
Block 1995		36	0.34	6	0.05	8	0.12	35	0.19	35	0.18	17	0.18
Blumental 1952		79	0.16	61	0.00	79	0.02	82	0.02	83	0.02	87	0.02
Boshniakovich 1969		58	0.27	72	0.00	49	0.04	62	0.04	56	0.04	61	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		2	0.47	12	0.03	4	0.16	5	0.52	11	0.45	4	0.48
Bunin 1987		68	0.23	34	0.00	75	0.05	52	0.05	85	0.03	62	0.04
Bunin 1987b		67	0.23	55	0.00	74	0.04	64	0.04	87	0.02	67	0.03
Chiu 1999		34	0.34	29	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.14	83	0.03	43	0.06
Cohen 1997		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Cortot 1951		38	0.33	36	0.00	50	0.05	54	0.05	48	0.06	53	0.05
Csalog 1996		1	0.47	8	0.04	3	0.12	6	0.52	13	0.50	2	0.51
Czerny 1949		72	0.20	48	0.00	59	0.04	58	0.04	65	0.03	74	0.03
Czerny 1990		80	0.16	69	0.00	83	0.03	78	0.03	89	0.02	89	0.02
Duchoud 2007		48	0.30	41	0.00	55	0.05	55	0.05	71	0.04	60	0.04
Ezaki 2006		33	0.34	18	0.01	34	0.05	39	0.14	80	0.03	41	0.06
Falvay 1989		10	0.44	7	0.04	6	0.14	10	0.49	54	0.05	18	0.16
Farrell 1958		24	0.37	86	0.00	38	0.05	32	0.23	47	0.05	30	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		28	0.35	15	0.01	33	0.06	27	0.31	32	0.21	12	0.26
Fliere 1977		43	0.31	79	0.00	61	0.04	59	0.04	65	0.04	56	0.04
Fou 1978		17	0.41	67	0.00	24	0.06	23	0.35	65	0.04	27	0.12
Francois 1956		55	0.28	5	0.06	22	0.07	30	0.26	68	0.03	36	0.09
Friedman 1923		91	-0.07	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.02	91	0.01
Friedman 1923b		90	-0.07	82	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.02
Friedman 1930		84	0.10	73	0.00	82	0.02	83	0.02	83	0.02	84	0.02
Garcia 2007		82	0.15	58	0.00	68	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.02	86	0.02
Garcia 2007b		75	0.19	75	0.00	70	0.03	75	0.03	70	0.03	79	0.03
Gierzod 1998		20	0.38	74	0.00	25	0.07	21	0.36	55	0.05	25	0.13
Gornostaeva 1994		39	0.33	9	0.04	19	0.07	34	0.20	44	0.12	23	0.15
Groot 1988		37	0.34	76	0.00	47	0.06	51	0.06	84	0.02	78	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		49	0.30	33	0.00	46	0.06	47	0.06	61	0.04	54	0.05
Hatto 1993		56	0.28	80	0.00	40	0.05	41	0.13	80	0.03	45	0.06
Hatto 1997		41	0.32	37	0.00	17	0.08	26	0.32	76	0.03	32	0.10
Horowitz 1949		74	0.19	59	0.00	67	0.03	74	0.03	72	0.03	70	0.03
Indjic 1988		59	0.27	49	0.00	39	0.05	38	0.15	84	0.02	51	0.05
Kapell 1951		46	0.30	56	0.00	56	0.04	61	0.04	76	0.03	66	0.03
Kissin 1993		45	0.30	64	0.00	53	0.06	48	0.06	73	0.04	50	0.05
Kushner 1989		31	0.34	77	0.00	52	0.08	46	0.08	86	0.03	47	0.05
Luisada 1991		54	0.28	88	0.00	60	0.04	63	0.04	69	0.04	55	0.04
Lushtak 2004		18	0.40	27	0.00	21	0.08	12	0.47	61	0.04	24	0.14
Malcuzynski 1961		50	0.30	31	0.00	65	0.04	70	0.04	83	0.03	68	0.03
Magaloff 1978		4	0.46	38	0.00	10	0.10	4	0.53	54	0.04	20	0.15
Magin 1975		77	0.18	44	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	78	0.03	65	0.03
Michalowski 1933		76	0.19	21	0.01	57	0.04	69	0.04	70	0.04	58	0.04
Milkina 1970		8	0.45	3	0.08	5	0.15	3	0.56	26	0.32	5	0.42
Mohovich 1999		42	0.32	65	0.00	41	0.06	36	0.17	66	0.04	40	0.08
Moravec 1969		57	0.28	25	0.01	62	0.04	68	0.04	79	0.03	63	0.03
Morozova 2008		71	0.21	50	0.00	73	0.04	66	0.04	70	0.04	59	0.04
Neighaus 1950		30	0.34	40	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.11	86	0.02	52	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		83	0.11	57	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	88	0.02	82	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		16	0.41	26	0.00	23	0.06	15	0.40	80	0.03	31	0.11
Osinska 1989		12	0.43	13	0.02	11	0.12	9	0.50	42	0.12	13	0.24
Pachmann 1927		21	0.38	32	0.00	18	0.08	16	0.40	36	0.19	10	0.28
Paderewski 1930		40	0.32	83	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	61	0.03	49	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		62	0.25	62	0.00	69	0.03	72	0.03	81	0.03	64	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		47	0.30	70	0.00	44	0.05	42	0.12	66	0.03	44	0.06
Poblocka 1999		15	0.42	51	0.00	26	0.07	17	0.39	63	0.04	26	0.12
Rabcewiczowa 1932		52	0.29	45	0.00	48	0.06	50	0.06	66	0.04	46	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		89	0.00	78	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.01	90	0.01
Rangell 2001		19	0.39	4	0.07	7	0.12	13	0.41	45	0.12	15	0.22
Richter 1976		27	0.36	47	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	58	0.04	48	0.05
Rosen 1989		7	0.45	19	0.01	13	0.10	19	0.37	41	0.14	14	0.23
Rosenthal 1930		53	0.29	66	0.00	58	0.04	67	0.04	70	0.03	76	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		35	0.34	46	0.00	30	0.07	18	0.37	25	0.28	8	0.32
Rosenthal 1931b		32	0.34	39	0.00	31	0.12	22	0.35	27	0.27	9	0.31
Rosenthal 1931c		23	0.37	22	0.01	32	0.08	29	0.27	44	0.09	19	0.16
Rosenthal 1931d		25	0.36	42	0.00	28	0.11	14	0.41	22	0.29	6	0.34
Rossi 2007		87	0.03	52	0.00	84	0.02	89	0.02	77	0.02	81	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		22	0.38	1	0.21	1	0.21	7	0.50	6	0.50	3	0.50
Rubinstein 1952		3	0.47	2	0.10	2	0.21	1	0.61	10	0.52	1	0.56
Rubinstein 1966		29	0.35	60	0.00	20	0.09	31	0.26	40	0.14	16	0.19
Schilhawsky 1960		66	0.23	89	0.00	76	0.04	65	0.04	71	0.03	73	0.03
Shebanova 2002		5	0.45	63	0.00	14	0.13	20	0.36	52	0.06	22	0.15
Smith 1975		9	0.45	11	0.03	9	0.11	2	0.59	67	0.04	21	0.15
Sokolov 2002		61	0.26	23	0.01	71	0.03	73	0.03	85	0.02	80	0.02
Sztompka 1959		63	0.23	35	0.00	77	0.04	71	0.04	84	0.03	71	0.03
Tomsic 1995		26	0.36	30	0.00	35	0.08	28	0.28	76	0.03	34	0.09
Uninsky 1932		86	0.04	90	0.00	89	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.02	85	0.02
Uninsky 1971		65	0.23	14	0.02	54	0.04	56	0.04	82	0.03	72	0.03
Wasowski 1980		51	0.30	17	0.01	37	0.05	44	0.11	78	0.03	42	0.06
Zak 1937		70	0.22	84	0.00	64	0.05	53	0.05	74	0.04	57	0.04
Zak 1951		69	0.22	85	0.00	63	0.04	57	0.04	82	0.03	69	0.03
Average		6	0.45	16	0.01	15	0.10	8	0.50	84	0.03	28	0.12
Random 1		88	0.03	53	0.00	87	0.02	85	0.02	11	0.41	35	0.09
Random 2		85	0.04	91	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	19	0.32	39	0.08
Random 3		81	0.15	24	0.01	78	0.03	79	0.03	7	0.45	29	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).