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		36	0.39	36	0.00	43	0.06	44	0.13	20	0.48	36	0.25
Anderszewski 2003		48	0.37	83	0.00	47	0.05	54	0.05	40	0.25	56	0.11
Ashkenazy 1981		14	0.46	6	0.01	19	0.11	22	0.48	15	0.61	15	0.54
Bacha 2000		53	0.36	48	0.00	35	0.07	39	0.22	15	0.53	31	0.34
Badura 1965		20	0.43	21	0.00	15	0.08	12	0.54	2	0.71	7	0.62
Barbosa 1983		9	0.47	49	0.00	24	0.10	18	0.50	21	0.42	23	0.46
Biret 1990		72	0.31	63	0.00	71	0.03	78	0.03	61	0.04	88	0.03
Blet 2003		56	0.35	53	0.00	72	0.04	66	0.04	50	0.06	75	0.05
Block 1995		63	0.33	85	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	64	0.04	83	0.04
Blumental 1952		57	0.35	33	0.00	65	0.04	72	0.04	42	0.14	69	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		23	0.42	54	0.00	20	0.11	15	0.51	24	0.42	24	0.46
Brailowsky 1960		69	0.31	74	0.00	70	0.03	79	0.03	37	0.21	63	0.08
Bunin 1987		37	0.39	20	0.00	27	0.08	31	0.36	8	0.56	26	0.45
Bunin 1987b		35	0.40	15	0.00	21	0.08	29	0.40	8	0.56	18	0.47
Chiu 1999		4	0.50	7	0.01	6	0.14	4	0.63	3	0.69	4	0.66
Cohen 1997		80	0.27	80	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	61	0.04	87	0.03
Cortot 1951		82	0.27	64	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	53	0.06	84	0.04
Csalog 1996		52	0.36	81	0.00	57	0.05	57	0.05	33	0.17	59	0.09
Czerny 1949		43	0.38	72	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	26	0.53	43	0.16
Czerny 1990		8	0.47	23	0.00	4	0.17	6	0.62	16	0.68	5	0.65
Duchoud 2007		38	0.39	31	0.00	30	0.07	26	0.42	10	0.59	17	0.50
Ezaki 2006		18	0.44	32	0.00	25	0.10	17	0.50	16	0.57	16	0.53
Falvay 1989		29	0.40	75	0.00	33	0.11	36	0.27	60	0.05	51	0.12
Farrell 1958		31	0.40	8	0.01	46	0.05	55	0.05	27	0.32	47	0.13
Ferenczy 1958		87	0.21	67	0.00	88	0.03	81	0.03	62	0.05	82	0.04
Fliere 1977		13	0.46	34	0.00	10	0.10	9	0.55	31	0.36	27	0.44
Fou 1978		5	0.49	4	0.01	5	0.18	5	0.63	8	0.65	6	0.64
Francois 1956		85	0.25	65	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	74	0.03	89	0.03
Friedman 1923		70	0.31	66	0.00	52	0.05	51	0.05	38	0.18	60	0.09
Friedman 1923b		66	0.33	18	0.00	51	0.05	62	0.05	36	0.32	48	0.13
Friedman 1930		65	0.33	47	0.00	63	0.04	68	0.04	39	0.13	68	0.07
Garcia 2007		74	0.30	10	0.01	41	0.06	42	0.17	22	0.39	35	0.26
Garcia 2007b		61	0.33	68	0.00	44	0.07	43	0.14	23	0.45	37	0.25
Gierzod 1998		25	0.42	22	0.00	26	0.09	25	0.43	21	0.43	29	0.43
Gornostaeva 1994		45	0.37	27	0.00	61	0.05	58	0.05	50	0.07	73	0.06
Groot 1988		27	0.41	26	0.00	17	0.09	24	0.47	15	0.47	20	0.47
Harasiewicz 1955		19	0.44	38	0.00	37	0.08	32	0.34	58	0.05	49	0.13
Hatto 1993		34	0.40	40	0.00	34	0.07	34	0.30	42	0.16	40	0.22
Hatto 1997		51	0.36	76	0.00	48	0.05	56	0.05	78	0.04	81	0.04
Horowitz 1949		77	0.29	28	0.00	78	0.06	48	0.06	41	0.20	55	0.11
Indjic 1988		40	0.38	73	0.00	36	0.08	35	0.28	39	0.21	39	0.24
Kapell 1951		26	0.42	16	0.00	16	0.10	14	0.53	18	0.40	21	0.46
Kissin 1993		21	0.43	58	0.00	29	0.09	30	0.39	23	0.54	22	0.46
Kushner 1989		2	0.53	11	0.01	2	0.37	2	0.70	8	0.66	3	0.68
Luisada 1991		28	0.41	61	0.00	39	0.08	40	0.18	25	0.31	38	0.24
Lushtak 2004		41	0.38	17	0.00	62	0.04	64	0.04	40	0.10	72	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		11	0.47	14	0.01	7	0.15	7	0.59	16	0.52	12	0.55
Magaloff 1978		22	0.43	70	0.00	28	0.09	27	0.42	18	0.44	28	0.43
Magin 1975		46	0.37	56	0.00	55	0.05	59	0.05	41	0.19	58	0.10
Michalowski 1933		78	0.29	62	0.00	59	0.05	52	0.05	13	0.47	44	0.15
Milkina 1970		15	0.45	9	0.01	14	0.08	10	0.55	16	0.59	10	0.57
Mohovich 1999		62	0.33	86	0.00	58	0.06	47	0.06	66	0.04	76	0.05
Moravec 1969		50	0.36	55	0.00	50	0.05	61	0.05	59	0.05	74	0.05
Morozova 2008		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Neighaus 1950		42	0.38	69	0.00	53	0.06	50	0.06	32	0.25	52	0.12
Niedzielski 1931		83	0.25	37	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	82	0.03	85	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		24	0.42	24	0.00	22	0.08	21	0.49	16	0.41	25	0.45
Osinska 1989		44	0.37	30	0.00	31	0.08	28	0.40	34	0.29	32	0.34
Pachmann 1927		71	0.31	44	0.00	77	0.04	63	0.04	44	0.12	66	0.07
Paderewski 1930		86	0.24	90	0.00	86	0.04	73	0.04	75	0.03	86	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		58	0.34	50	0.00	69	0.03	77	0.03	36	0.20	62	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		73	0.30	35	0.00	66	0.04	71	0.04	29	0.32	54	0.11
Poblocka 1999		17	0.45	42	0.00	18	0.11	20	0.49	11	0.60	14	0.54
Rabcewiczowa 1932		60	0.34	77	0.00	60	0.06	49	0.06	52	0.06	71	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		54	0.35	57	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	33	0.30	42	0.17
Rangell 2001		39	0.38	25	0.00	38	0.08	37	0.26	15	0.54	30	0.37
Richter 1976		3	0.51	29	0.00	3	0.21	3	0.65	8	0.75	1	0.70
Rosen 1989		30	0.40	41	0.00	32	0.10	33	0.32	25	0.30	34	0.31
Rosenthal 1930		68	0.32	60	0.00	76	0.04	65	0.04	35	0.31	57	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		64	0.33	82	0.00	73	0.04	74	0.04	23	0.50	46	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		81	0.27	39	0.00	80	0.05	60	0.05	35	0.30	53	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		67	0.32	19	0.00	67	0.04	76	0.04	38	0.18	65	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.25	46	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	39	0.15	70	0.07
Rossi 2007		88	0.17	88	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	59	0.05	78	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		10	0.47	12	0.01	11	0.09	8	0.56	9	0.58	9	0.57
Rubinstein 1952		49	0.36	5	0.01	40	0.09	38	0.25	45	0.16	41	0.20
Rubinstein 1966		12	0.46	45	0.00	23	0.08	23	0.48	30	0.23	33	0.33
Schilhawsky 1960		59	0.34	52	0.00	68	0.03	82	0.03	37	0.15	67	0.07
Shebanova 2002		7	0.48	2	0.03	8	0.11	19	0.50	25	0.45	19	0.47
Smith 1975		79	0.28	89	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	77	0.03	90	0.02
Sokolov 2002		55	0.35	78	0.00	56	0.04	75	0.04	31	0.37	50	0.12
Sztompka 1959		6	0.48	13	0.01	9	0.13	13	0.54	14	0.60	11	0.57
Tomsic 1995		32	0.40	3	0.03	12	0.07	16	0.51	5	0.59	13	0.55
Uninsky 1932		16	0.45	59	0.00	13	0.07	11	0.55	11	0.65	8	0.60
Uninsky 1971		33	0.40	71	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.17	45	0.13	45	0.15
Wasowski 1980		47	0.37	43	0.00	54	0.06	46	0.06	41	0.12	61	0.08
Zak 1937		76	0.29	84	0.00	74	0.04	70	0.04	63	0.05	79	0.04
Zak 1951		75	0.29	91	0.00	75	0.04	67	0.04	74	0.04	80	0.04
Average		1	0.64	1	0.78	1	0.77	1	0.88	13	0.56	2	0.70
Random 1		90	-0.04	79	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	60	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		89	0.06	51	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	25	0.30	64	0.08
Random 3		91	-0.04	87	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	24	0.27	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).