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		4	0.80	7	0.03	9	0.14	10	0.47	26	0.33	14	0.39
Anderszewski 2003		36	0.68	76	0.00	39	0.09	34	0.20	39	0.19	37	0.19
Ashkenazy 1981		12	0.78	1	0.25	1	0.25	5	0.55	4	0.54	2	0.54
Bacha 2000		72	0.50	89	0.00	69	0.04	56	0.04	77	0.03	80	0.03
Badura 1965		17	0.75	3	0.07	18	0.09	17	0.40	3	0.61	6	0.49
Barbosa 1983		66	0.55	18	0.01	70	0.06	46	0.06	41	0.11	54	0.08
Biret 1990		54	0.61	36	0.00	50	0.04	65	0.04	47	0.07	66	0.05
Blet 2003		39	0.67	50	0.00	32	0.06	35	0.19	28	0.28	29	0.23
Block 1995		58	0.59	57	0.00	47	0.05	47	0.05	32	0.16	50	0.09
Blumental 1952		53	0.63	33	0.00	57	0.03	72	0.03	53	0.05	76	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		32	0.69	34	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.19	32	0.28	31	0.23
Brailowsky 1960		65	0.55	87	0.00	66	0.05	51	0.05	46	0.06	61	0.05
Bunin 1987		76	0.45	62	0.00	78	0.03	76	0.03	46	0.08	65	0.05
Bunin 1987b		77	0.45	66	0.00	77	0.03	71	0.03	46	0.08	62	0.05
Chiu 1999		35	0.68	29	0.00	37	0.05	39	0.16	22	0.26	33	0.20
Cohen 1997		85	0.38	58	0.00	82	0.02	89	0.02	62	0.04	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		55	0.61	59	0.00	60	0.04	55	0.04	49	0.05	78	0.04
Csalog 1996		81	0.40	32	0.00	75	0.03	73	0.03	55	0.04	84	0.03
Czerny 1949		52	0.63	20	0.01	30	0.05	30	0.24	45	0.12	39	0.17
Czerny 1990		24	0.71	46	0.00	33	0.06	26	0.29	35	0.15	32	0.21
Duchoud 2007		64	0.56	25	0.00	58	0.04	69	0.04	20	0.28	47	0.11
Ezaki 2006		13	0.77	69	0.00	19	0.09	29	0.24	31	0.22	28	0.23
Falvay 1989		78	0.45	70	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	61	0.05	71	0.04
Farrell 1958		37	0.68	15	0.01	46	0.05	49	0.05	48	0.08	60	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		67	0.55	72	0.00	79	0.05	52	0.05	66	0.04	75	0.04
Fliere 1977		6	0.79	11	0.02	7	0.11	8	0.50	24	0.31	13	0.39
Fou 1978		15	0.75	12	0.02	12	0.11	11	0.46	14	0.41	7	0.43
Francois 1956		69	0.51	41	0.00	68	0.04	58	0.04	38	0.14	59	0.07
Friedman 1923		22	0.73	51	0.00	36	0.05	33	0.22	32	0.37	25	0.29
Friedman 1923b		19	0.74	47	0.00	34	0.05	32	0.23	31	0.37	24	0.29
Friedman 1930		30	0.70	73	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.14	37	0.30	34	0.20
Garcia 2007		28	0.70	77	0.00	42	0.05	41	0.13	41	0.15	44	0.14
Garcia 2007b		45	0.65	84	0.00	49	0.04	61	0.04	63	0.04	79	0.04
Gierzod 1998		26	0.71	19	0.01	21	0.11	15	0.42	34	0.23	23	0.31
Gornostaeva 1994		68	0.51	23	0.01	72	0.03	70	0.03	67	0.03	86	0.03
Groot 1988		62	0.57	26	0.00	52	0.04	67	0.04	53	0.06	67	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		16	0.75	83	0.00	23	0.06	27	0.27	37	0.13	38	0.19
Hatto 1993		10	0.79	67	0.00	14	0.10	14	0.43	18	0.38	12	0.40
Hatto 1997		7	0.79	37	0.00	10	0.11	13	0.44	19	0.38	9	0.41
Horowitz 1949		44	0.65	38	0.00	54	0.03	81	0.03	43	0.19	52	0.08
Indjic 1988		9	0.79	43	0.00	13	0.09	12	0.44	19	0.37	10	0.40
Kapell 1951		47	0.64	24	0.00	24	0.06	24	0.31	45	0.07	41	0.15
Kissin 1993		3	0.81	22	0.01	5	0.15	3	0.56	13	0.48	4	0.52
Kushner 1989		14	0.76	5	0.05	3	0.12	6	0.52	10	0.52	3	0.52
Luisada 1991		1	0.84	4	0.06	4	0.12	4	0.55	5	0.48	5	0.51
Lushtak 2004		20	0.73	27	0.00	22	0.08	23	0.35	16	0.30	21	0.32
Malcuzynski 1961		80	0.41	53	0.00	80	0.03	80	0.03	65	0.04	83	0.03
Magaloff 1978		73	0.50	82	0.00	71	0.04	53	0.04	56	0.05	70	0.04
Magin 1975		11	0.78	9	0.02	6	0.16	2	0.57	5	0.54	1	0.55
Michalowski 1933		61	0.57	63	0.00	64	0.04	64	0.04	47	0.07	63	0.05
Milkina 1970		41	0.66	14	0.01	28	0.05	37	0.18	35	0.20	36	0.19
Mohovich 1999		46	0.65	52	0.00	51	0.05	48	0.05	43	0.13	55	0.08
Moravec 1969		84	0.38	78	0.00	88	0.04	66	0.04	79	0.03	81	0.03
Morozova 2008		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Neighaus 1950		51	0.63	28	0.00	40	0.05	42	0.13	78	0.04	58	0.07
Niedzielski 1931		60	0.59	64	0.00	65	0.04	57	0.04	52	0.04	73	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		34	0.68	44	0.00	20	0.09	22	0.35	21	0.37	17	0.36
Osinska 1989		42	0.65	40	0.00	48	0.04	59	0.04	59	0.04	69	0.04
Pachmann 1927		57	0.60	91	0.00	61	0.04	54	0.04	4	0.47	43	0.14
Paderewski 1930		59	0.59	68	0.00	62	0.04	62	0.04	33	0.15	53	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		29	0.70	55	0.00	26	0.06	25	0.29	28	0.24	26	0.26
Pierdomenico 2008		71	0.51	79	0.00	67	0.04	60	0.04	35	0.25	48	0.10
Poblocka 1999		38	0.67	8	0.03	29	0.05	28	0.27	35	0.23	27	0.25
Rabcewiczowa 1932		49	0.64	31	0.00	35	0.05	38	0.17	30	0.21	35	0.19
Rachmaninoff 1923		31	0.69	42	0.00	25	0.06	21	0.35	23	0.31	19	0.33
Rangell 2001		88	0.35	16	0.01	73	0.03	78	0.03	57	0.04	87	0.03
Richter 1976		50	0.64	54	0.00	55	0.04	63	0.04	31	0.38	46	0.12
Rosen 1989		25	0.71	6	0.04	11	0.10	16	0.41	21	0.35	16	0.38
Rosenthal 1930		75	0.46	48	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	45	0.07	64	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.40	80	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	56	0.05	74	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.39	60	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	71	0.04	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		87	0.37	45	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	60	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.38	74	0.00	85	0.03	82	0.03	51	0.05	77	0.04
Rossi 2007		79	0.44	85	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	66	0.05	82	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		40	0.66	30	0.00	53	0.03	75	0.03	35	0.17	57	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		70	0.51	17	0.01	44	0.04	45	0.09	43	0.18	45	0.13
Rubinstein 1966		43	0.65	49	0.00	45	0.05	43	0.10	35	0.27	40	0.16
Schilhawsky 1960		23	0.72	61	0.00	27	0.06	20	0.36	37	0.33	18	0.34
Shebanova 2002		21	0.73	10	0.02	8	0.12	7	0.51	27	0.32	11	0.40
Smith 1975		56	0.60	39	0.00	63	0.05	50	0.05	64	0.04	72	0.04
Sokolov 2002		63	0.56	56	0.00	59	0.04	68	0.04	41	0.13	56	0.07
Sztompka 1959		18	0.74	13	0.02	17	0.11	9	0.48	28	0.30	15	0.38
Tomsic 1995		74	0.49	35	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	38	0.20	51	0.08
Uninsky 1932		27	0.71	21	0.01	31	0.05	31	0.23	39	0.24	30	0.23
Uninsky 1971		48	0.64	75	0.00	41	0.04	44	0.09	39	0.26	42	0.15
Wasowski 1980		33	0.69	71	0.00	56	0.03	74	0.03	65	0.05	68	0.04
Zak 1937		8	0.79	65	0.00	16	0.10	19	0.38	23	0.25	22	0.31
Zak 1951		5	0.79	90	0.00	15	0.10	18	0.39	22	0.27	20	0.32
Average		2	0.83	2	0.20	2	0.24	1	0.66	30	0.26	8	0.41
Random 1		91	-0.26	81	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	81	0.02	90	0.01
Random 2		89	0.06	88	0.00	89	0.02	86	0.02	3	0.53	49	0.10
Random 3		90	-0.25	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01

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).