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		10	0.45	69	0.00	18	0.09	16	0.47	12	0.58	15	0.52
Anderszewski 2003		72	0.27	33	0.00	80	0.03	80	0.03	66	0.04	87	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		6	0.49	10	0.01	4	0.17	5	0.69	19	0.69	3	0.69
Bacha 2000		44	0.35	5	0.02	17	0.08	35	0.20	11	0.55	30	0.33
Badura 1965		48	0.34	70	0.00	58	0.05	56	0.05	22	0.48	50	0.15
Barbosa 1983		16	0.43	57	0.00	42	0.04	45	0.09	31	0.32	44	0.17
Biret 1990		84	0.21	86	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	57	0.05	84	0.04
Blet 2003		38	0.36	26	0.00	60	0.04	78	0.04	47	0.09	72	0.06
Block 1995		43	0.35	82	0.00	51	0.05	60	0.05	44	0.13	65	0.08
Blumental 1952		49	0.34	23	0.00	50	0.05	59	0.05	28	0.35	54	0.13
Boshniakovich 1969		56	0.32	51	0.00	47	0.05	54	0.05	34	0.32	55	0.13
Brailowsky 1960		47	0.34	60	0.00	44	0.05	39	0.13	13	0.60	34	0.28
Bunin 1987		40	0.36	47	0.00	27	0.15	24	0.35	22	0.47	25	0.41
Bunin 1987b		39	0.36	44	0.00	26	0.11	23	0.35	22	0.46	26	0.40
Chiu 1999		2	0.57	2	0.09	2	0.28	3	0.71	10	0.69	1	0.70
Cohen 1997		67	0.28	48	0.00	76	0.04	70	0.04	51	0.06	78	0.05
Cortot 1951		74	0.25	83	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	47	0.06	85	0.04
Csalog 1996		52	0.33	49	0.00	57	0.04	69	0.04	34	0.26	60	0.10
Czerny 1949		86	0.18	35	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	43	0.17	68	0.07
Czerny 1990		14	0.44	16	0.00	9	0.16	9	0.61	13	0.76	5	0.68
Duchoud 2007		26	0.40	24	0.00	29	0.09	22	0.38	17	0.52	23	0.44
Ezaki 2006		13	0.44	77	0.00	20	0.06	25	0.35	12	0.66	18	0.48
Falvay 1989		35	0.37	13	0.00	19	0.07	29	0.30	21	0.37	31	0.33
Farrell 1958		41	0.36	54	0.00	64	0.05	57	0.05	25	0.39	52	0.14
Ferenczy 1958		87	0.15	78	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	61	0.06	83	0.04
Fliere 1977		7	0.49	21	0.00	7	0.17	4	0.71	23	0.63	6	0.67
Fou 1978		4	0.52	19	0.00	8	0.19	7	0.64	3	0.69	7	0.66
Francois 1956		85	0.19	27	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	64	0.04	89	0.03
Friedman 1923		20	0.42	79	0.00	24	0.09	19	0.42	28	0.51	21	0.46
Friedman 1923b		24	0.41	85	0.00	23	0.06	20	0.42	33	0.50	20	0.46
Friedman 1930		21	0.42	37	0.00	25	0.10	21	0.41	29	0.53	19	0.47
Garcia 2007		75	0.25	12	0.00	52	0.05	55	0.05	39	0.24	58	0.11
Garcia 2007b		63	0.30	71	0.00	40	0.04	44	0.10	35	0.31	42	0.18
Gierzod 1998		60	0.31	34	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	24	0.44	46	0.16
Gornostaeva 1994		59	0.32	22	0.00	56	0.04	75	0.04	32	0.35	57	0.12
Groot 1988		11	0.44	39	0.00	6	0.14	6	0.65	12	0.56	10	0.60
Harasiewicz 1955		27	0.40	38	0.00	54	0.04	72	0.04	53	0.06	79	0.05
Hatto 1993		25	0.41	17	0.00	31	0.09	31	0.28	30	0.32	33	0.30
Hatto 1997		51	0.33	61	0.00	68	0.05	63	0.05	56	0.06	75	0.05
Horowitz 1949		54	0.33	14	0.00	43	0.05	41	0.13	32	0.40	39	0.23
Indjic 1988		34	0.37	52	0.00	37	0.06	36	0.20	31	0.35	37	0.26
Kapell 1951		55	0.32	62	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	45	0.09	63	0.08
Kissin 1993		42	0.35	66	0.00	38	0.05	40	0.13	37	0.41	40	0.23
Kushner 1989		5	0.50	28	0.00	13	0.13	10	0.59	8	0.66	9	0.62
Luisada 1991		12	0.44	40	0.00	15	0.14	12	0.53	17	0.59	12	0.56
Lushtak 2004		50	0.34	20	0.00	66	0.05	61	0.05	40	0.12	64	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		22	0.42	18	0.00	21	0.07	26	0.34	23	0.43	28	0.38
Magaloff 1978		32	0.39	63	0.00	30	0.08	28	0.33	23	0.46	27	0.39
Magin 1975		70	0.27	36	0.00	74	0.06	51	0.06	51	0.08	66	0.07
Michalowski 1933		65	0.29	64	0.00	53	0.07	46	0.07	39	0.28	53	0.14
Milkina 1970		66	0.28	43	0.00	72	0.06	53	0.06	43	0.17	59	0.10
Mohovich 1999		68	0.28	87	0.00	67	0.04	68	0.04	54	0.06	76	0.05
Moravec 1969		45	0.35	31	0.00	34	0.06	37	0.18	26	0.33	38	0.24
Morozova 2008		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Neighaus 1950		31	0.39	45	0.00	28	0.13	17	0.45	29	0.32	29	0.38
Niedzielski 1931		36	0.37	7	0.01	36	0.07	33	0.25	29	0.32	35	0.28
Ohlsson 1999		30	0.39	9	0.01	35	0.05	34	0.22	40	0.11	45	0.16
Osinska 1989		79	0.23	84	0.00	73	0.05	62	0.05	46	0.08	70	0.06
Pachmann 1927		58	0.32	53	0.00	62	0.05	66	0.05	43	0.15	62	0.09
Paderewski 1930		76	0.25	55	0.00	77	0.04	74	0.04	56	0.06	74	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		33	0.38	29	0.00	22	0.06	27	0.33	22	0.58	22	0.44
Pierdomenico 2008		71	0.27	72	0.00	69	0.06	48	0.06	32	0.25	56	0.12
Poblocka 1999		19	0.42	6	0.01	14	0.13	14	0.52	5	0.63	11	0.57
Rabcewiczowa 1932		77	0.24	88	0.00	79	0.05	64	0.05	48	0.08	71	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		23	0.42	11	0.01	12	0.13	18	0.43	20	0.55	17	0.49
Rangell 2001		61	0.31	80	0.00	59	0.04	77	0.04	32	0.27	61	0.10
Richter 1976		8	0.48	42	0.00	10	0.11	8	0.62	26	0.68	8	0.65
Rosen 1989		18	0.42	32	0.00	11	0.12	15	0.52	18	0.57	13	0.54
Rosenthal 1930		29	0.40	67	0.00	33	0.12	30	0.30	14	0.60	24	0.42
Rosenthal 1931		46	0.34	58	0.00	55	0.04	71	0.04	23	0.57	49	0.15
Rosenthal 1931b		64	0.29	50	0.00	65	0.05	65	0.05	22	0.53	48	0.16
Rosenthal 1931c		53	0.33	8	0.01	39	0.05	38	0.15	26	0.47	36	0.27
Rosenthal 1931d		83	0.21	25	0.00	71	0.06	50	0.06	26	0.41	47	0.16
Rossi 2007		89	0.00	89	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	78	0.03	90	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		17	0.43	30	0.00	32	0.09	32	0.27	12	0.40	32	0.33
Rubinstein 1952		73	0.26	59	0.00	70	0.04	73	0.04	51	0.06	80	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		28	0.40	73	0.00	49	0.05	67	0.05	42	0.10	67	0.07
Schilhawsky 1960		78	0.24	74	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	64	0.04	88	0.03
Shebanova 2002		3	0.52	3	0.04	3	0.21	2	0.71	20	0.65	4	0.68
Smith 1975		80	0.22	56	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	60	0.05	86	0.03
Sokolov 2002		69	0.28	41	0.00	63	0.06	52	0.06	30	0.33	51	0.14
Sztompka 1959		9	0.47	4	0.03	5	0.13	13	0.52	20	0.52	14	0.52
Tomsic 1995		57	0.32	15	0.00	41	0.05	42	0.13	24	0.30	41	0.20
Uninsky 1932		15	0.43	46	0.00	16	0.10	11	0.54	20	0.46	16	0.50
Uninsky 1971		37	0.37	81	0.00	45	0.06	43	0.12	36	0.23	43	0.17
Wasowski 1980		62	0.30	75	0.00	61	0.03	79	0.03	57	0.06	81	0.04
Zak 1937		81	0.22	76	0.00	75	0.05	58	0.05	64	0.05	73	0.05
Zak 1951		82	0.22	90	0.00	78	0.04	76	0.04	54	0.05	82	0.04
Average		1	0.64	1	0.67	1	0.66	1	0.85	11	0.57	2	0.70
Random 1		90	-0.01	65	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	63	0.04	91	0.02
Random 2		88	0.09	91	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	28	0.28	69	0.07
Random 3		91	-0.05	68	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	28	0.22	77	0.05

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).