Morozova 2008

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		15	0.63	18	0.01	7	0.08	11	0.29	21	0.30	12	0.29
Anderszewski 2003		46	0.54	76	0.00	64	0.04	58	0.04	37	0.15	62	0.08
Ashkenazy 1981		31	0.59	14	0.02	29	0.05	29	0.17	45	0.10	42	0.13
Bacha 2000		83	0.29	61	0.00	74	0.03	78	0.03	41	0.11	68	0.06
Badura 1965		28	0.60	10	0.03	36	0.04	32	0.15	11	0.47	14	0.27
Barbosa 1983		47	0.54	63	0.00	37	0.04	41	0.11	34	0.28	35	0.18
Biret 1990		34	0.58	83	0.00	22	0.05	23	0.18	26	0.25	25	0.21
Blet 2003		10	0.66	64	0.00	33	0.05	16	0.24	25	0.29	17	0.26
Block 1995		74	0.41	71	0.00	55	0.04	57	0.04	49	0.04	79	0.04
Blumental 1952		37	0.57	5	0.04	18	0.07	33	0.15	9	0.35	22	0.23
Boshniakovich 1969		12	0.65	17	0.01	32	0.05	26	0.17	15	0.33	20	0.24
Brailowsky 1960		23	0.61	21	0.01	47	0.04	60	0.04	32	0.23	50	0.10
Bunin 1987		18	0.62	73	0.00	10	0.07	22	0.20	31	0.27	23	0.23
Bunin 1987b		17	0.63	50	0.00	9	0.07	19	0.20	30	0.27	21	0.23
Chiu 1999		22	0.61	9	0.03	19	0.08	14	0.26	13	0.47	7	0.35
Cohen 1997		88	0.14	75	0.00	86	0.02	81	0.02	68	0.03	91	0.02
Cortot 1951		41	0.57	22	0.01	51	0.04	53	0.04	27	0.31	48	0.11
Csalog 1996		87	0.18	72	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	56	0.05	84	0.03
Czerny 1949		14	0.63	6	0.04	8	0.10	9	0.31	27	0.31	9	0.31
Czerny 1990		2	0.72	8	0.04	5	0.10	5	0.42	12	0.39	5	0.40
Duchoud 2007		32	0.59	77	0.00	28	0.05	31	0.15	29	0.29	24	0.21
Ezaki 2006		3	0.72	2	0.11	2	0.12	6	0.38	22	0.30	8	0.34
Falvay 1989		19	0.62	23	0.01	27	0.07	20	0.20	33	0.16	34	0.18
Farrell 1958		54	0.53	79	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	11	0.29	47	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		68	0.46	68	0.00	78	0.03	74	0.03	49	0.05	78	0.04
Fliere 1977		5	0.71	20	0.01	6	0.11	4	0.44	14	0.38	3	0.41
Fou 1978		24	0.61	24	0.01	31	0.05	28	0.17	21	0.38	18	0.25
Francois 1956		60	0.51	39	0.00	25	0.05	35	0.14	37	0.13	43	0.13
Friedman 1923		85	0.22	69	0.00	88	0.03	77	0.03	34	0.22	64	0.08
Friedman 1923b		86	0.21	66	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	38	0.19	73	0.06
Friedman 1930		78	0.39	51	0.00	72	0.03	76	0.03	41	0.11	71	0.06
Garcia 2007		73	0.41	80	0.00	77	0.03	70	0.03	22	0.30	56	0.09
Garcia 2007b		79	0.39	85	0.00	76	0.03	69	0.03	10	0.29	58	0.09
Gierzod 1998		64	0.48	28	0.01	57	0.06	46	0.06	56	0.04	76	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		25	0.61	43	0.00	38	0.06	39	0.12	29	0.23	37	0.17
Groot 1988		43	0.56	31	0.00	26	0.06	25	0.18	32	0.19	36	0.18
Harasiewicz 1955		38	0.57	59	0.00	43	0.04	44	0.10	44	0.10	54	0.10
Hatto 1993		70	0.45	19	0.01	40	0.04	37	0.13	22	0.30	31	0.20
Hatto 1997		63	0.49	67	0.00	39	0.04	36	0.13	24	0.31	30	0.20
Horowitz 1949		50	0.53	52	0.00	60	0.05	50	0.05	26	0.28	45	0.12
Indjic 1988		69	0.45	49	0.00	41	0.05	38	0.12	23	0.34	29	0.20
Kapell 1951		65	0.48	36	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	53	0.05	77	0.04
Kissin 1993		29	0.60	55	0.00	54	0.04	59	0.04	47	0.06	75	0.05
Kushner 1989		8	0.69	3	0.08	3	0.11	3	0.47	7	0.47	2	0.47
Luisada 1991		4	0.71	41	0.00	12	0.07	15	0.26	19	0.34	10	0.30
Lushtak 2004		13	0.65	33	0.00	13	0.09	13	0.26	40	0.14	33	0.19
Malcuzynski 1961		27	0.60	56	0.00	45	0.05	42	0.11	48	0.06	60	0.08
Magaloff 1978		49	0.54	7	0.04	30	0.05	40	0.11	42	0.14	44	0.12
Magin 1975		21	0.62	60	0.00	35	0.04	34	0.15	19	0.26	27	0.20
Michalowski 1933		71	0.44	27	0.01	53	0.05	52	0.05	42	0.14	61	0.08
Milkina 1970		56	0.52	12	0.02	17	0.08	17	0.22	25	0.26	19	0.24
Mohovich 1999		36	0.58	87	0.00	62	0.04	54	0.04	41	0.10	72	0.06
Moravec 1969		66	0.47	11	0.02	15	0.08	21	0.20	23	0.33	15	0.26
Morozova 2008		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Neighaus 1950		26	0.60	25	0.01	21	0.05	10	0.31	33	0.26	13	0.28
Niedzielski 1931		84	0.26	47	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	33	0.17	70	0.06
Ohlsson 1999		39	0.57	37	0.00	59	0.05	51	0.05	51	0.06	74	0.05
Osinska 1989		20	0.62	35	0.00	16	0.09	30	0.16	26	0.26	26	0.20
Pachmann 1927		82	0.31	81	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	53	0.05	82	0.03
Paderewski 1930		75	0.41	90	0.00	85	0.02	82	0.02	69	0.03	89	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		11	0.66	13	0.02	24	0.05	12	0.27	18	0.34	11	0.30
Pierdomenico 2008		35	0.58	86	0.00	61	0.04	63	0.04	45	0.09	69	0.06
Poblocka 1999		57	0.52	42	0.00	67	0.03	72	0.03	57	0.04	80	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		42	0.56	88	0.00	50	0.04	62	0.04	34	0.17	59	0.08
Rachmaninoff 1923		7	0.70	4	0.07	4	0.09	2	0.47	4	0.53	1	0.50
Rangell 2001		81	0.37	74	0.00	79	0.03	75	0.03	63	0.04	87	0.03
Richter 1976		58	0.52	78	0.00	69	0.04	67	0.04	73	0.03	81	0.03
Rosen 1989		59	0.51	57	0.00	49	0.04	64	0.04	44	0.13	66	0.07
Rosenthal 1930		51	0.53	44	0.00	48	0.04	68	0.04	22	0.38	46	0.12
Rosenthal 1931		67	0.46	54	0.00	70	0.03	80	0.03	24	0.34	52	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		72	0.42	70	0.00	71	0.03	79	0.03	25	0.28	57	0.09
Rosenthal 1931c		62	0.49	32	0.00	63	0.04	55	0.04	26	0.28	49	0.11
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.38	46	0.00	75	0.04	61	0.04	39	0.11	67	0.07
Rossi 2007		52	0.53	91	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.10	3	0.38	32	0.19
Rubinstein 1939		76	0.40	30	0.00	80	0.02	83	0.02	20	0.37	55	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		77	0.40	40	0.00	82	0.02	85	0.02	65	0.04	88	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		48	0.54	45	0.00	58	0.05	49	0.05	23	0.42	41	0.14
Schilhawsky 1960		55	0.53	58	0.00	42	0.04	45	0.07	45	0.10	63	0.08
Shebanova 2002		53	0.53	26	0.01	56	0.05	48	0.05	33	0.21	53	0.10
Smith 1975		6	0.70	65	0.00	11	0.07	8	0.35	33	0.20	16	0.26
Sokolov 2002		9	0.68	16	0.01	14	0.09	7	0.37	24	0.36	6	0.36
Sztompka 1959		30	0.60	29	0.00	52	0.04	56	0.04	35	0.24	51	0.10
Tomsic 1995		33	0.59	15	0.01	34	0.04	24	0.18	36	0.15	39	0.16
Uninsky 1932		45	0.55	89	0.00	68	0.03	71	0.03	38	0.17	65	0.07
Uninsky 1971		61	0.50	62	0.00	73	0.03	73	0.03	63	0.04	83	0.03
Wasowski 1980		16	0.63	48	0.00	46	0.06	47	0.06	8	0.35	40	0.14
Zak 1937		44	0.55	38	0.00	23	0.05	27	0.17	40	0.15	38	0.16
Zak 1951		40	0.57	34	0.00	20	0.05	18	0.21	37	0.19	28	0.20
Average		1	0.75	1	0.21	1	0.21	1	0.62	30	0.26	4	0.40
Random 1		90	-0.06	82	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	60	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.16	84	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	44	0.10	85	0.03
Random 3		89	0.01	53	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	54	0.04	86	0.03

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).