Mohovich 1999

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		14	0.76	55	0.00	21	0.10	21	0.36	19	0.32	21	0.34
Anderszewski 2003		68	0.53	41	0.00	34	0.05	40	0.11	26	0.26	37	0.17
Ashkenazy 1981		57	0.60	71	0.00	64	0.04	60	0.04	74	0.03	85	0.03
Bacha 2000		52	0.62	72	0.00	63	0.03	72	0.03	25	0.31	48	0.10
Badura 1965		73	0.50	84	0.00	70	0.03	64	0.03	49	0.05	75	0.04
Barbosa 1983		51	0.62	8	0.03	25	0.09	26	0.26	13	0.43	22	0.33
Biret 1990		43	0.65	59	0.00	73	0.04	49	0.04	52	0.04	78	0.04
Blet 2003		16	0.76	58	0.00	26	0.08	16	0.37	10	0.43	15	0.40
Block 1995		45	0.64	19	0.01	53	0.04	48	0.04	16	0.31	47	0.11
Blumental 1952		79	0.32	31	0.00	84	0.03	86	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		30	0.69	18	0.01	32	0.06	30	0.17	18	0.32	30	0.23
Brailowsky 1960		25	0.71	16	0.01	46	0.04	54	0.04	25	0.30	43	0.11
Bunin 1987		20	0.74	83	0.00	23	0.09	19	0.36	14	0.43	17	0.39
Bunin 1987b		19	0.74	76	0.00	24	0.09	20	0.36	14	0.43	16	0.39
Chiu 1999		64	0.57	54	0.00	48	0.05	46	0.05	29	0.24	44	0.11
Cohen 1997		84	0.28	81	0.00	83	0.03	74	0.03	50	0.05	76	0.04
Cortot 1951		75	0.49	68	0.00	82	0.03	66	0.03	64	0.04	87	0.03
Csalog 1996		70	0.52	49	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	46	0.09	65	0.05
Czerny 1949		36	0.66	20	0.01	35	0.04	31	0.16	31	0.25	35	0.20
Czerny 1990		12	0.77	67	0.00	19	0.08	18	0.36	24	0.27	27	0.31
Duchoud 2007		58	0.60	33	0.00	65	0.04	61	0.04	56	0.04	74	0.04
Ezaki 2006		4	0.84	5	0.06	5	0.14	2	0.62	7	0.54	3	0.58
Falvay 1989		6	0.81	69	0.00	13	0.10	11	0.46	12	0.42	12	0.44
Farrell 1958		47	0.64	21	0.01	74	0.04	50	0.04	48	0.05	69	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		46	0.64	26	0.01	57	0.03	73	0.03	25	0.33	50	0.10
Fliere 1977		8	0.79	43	0.00	18	0.08	14	0.40	24	0.24	24	0.31
Fou 1978		26	0.71	60	0.00	22	0.09	23	0.34	23	0.36	20	0.35
Francois 1956		17	0.74	17	0.01	15	0.06	22	0.36	12	0.38	19	0.37
Friedman 1923		88	0.05	87	0.00	88	0.03	83	0.03	73	0.05	79	0.04
Friedman 1923b		87	0.06	88	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	68	0.05	77	0.04
Friedman 1930		85	0.26	89	0.00	75	0.04	55	0.04	38	0.14	60	0.07
Garcia 2007		76	0.44	32	0.00	78	0.02	88	0.02	37	0.19	64	0.06
Garcia 2007b		86	0.18	51	0.00	85	0.03	77	0.03	53	0.04	88	0.03
Gierzod 1998		41	0.66	23	0.01	62	0.03	79	0.03	54	0.04	83	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		10	0.78	13	0.01	16	0.07	17	0.37	13	0.39	18	0.38
Groot 1988		3	0.86	1	0.16	1	0.16	4	0.58	3	0.64	2	0.61
Harasiewicz 1955		56	0.61	4	0.08	4	0.13	10	0.46	6	0.45	11	0.45
Hatto 1993		81	0.29	63	0.00	60	0.03	78	0.03	68	0.03	86	0.03
Hatto 1997		77	0.40	11	0.01	33	0.05	38	0.11	36	0.12	46	0.11
Horowitz 1949		42	0.66	56	0.00	20	0.09	27	0.25	11	0.40	23	0.32
Indjic 1988		78	0.33	64	0.00	58	0.03	75	0.03	58	0.03	82	0.03
Kapell 1951		39	0.66	90	0.00	66	0.04	51	0.04	41	0.16	54	0.08
Kissin 1993		22	0.73	77	0.00	27	0.09	25	0.28	26	0.27	29	0.27
Kushner 1989		32	0.68	52	0.00	51	0.04	53	0.04	51	0.05	70	0.04
Luisada 1991		34	0.67	25	0.01	37	0.04	45	0.08	35	0.20	39	0.13
Lushtak 2004		29	0.69	7	0.04	10	0.10	7	0.52	14	0.44	9	0.48
Malcuzynski 1961		5	0.81	70	0.00	12	0.10	12	0.45	18	0.37	14	0.41
Magaloff 1978		11	0.77	22	0.01	11	0.09	9	0.46	19	0.39	13	0.42
Magin 1975		67	0.56	45	0.00	71	0.04	59	0.04	41	0.12	59	0.07
Michalowski 1933		82	0.29	61	0.00	76	0.03	67	0.03	52	0.05	72	0.04
Milkina 1970		27	0.71	34	0.00	45	0.04	44	0.08	43	0.15	45	0.11
Mohovich 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Moravec 1969		63	0.57	48	0.00	80	0.03	87	0.03	60	0.04	80	0.03
Morozova 2008		61	0.58	85	0.00	39	0.04	41	0.10	54	0.04	63	0.06
Neighaus 1950		7	0.80	15	0.01	6	0.12	5	0.56	5	0.56	5	0.56
Niedzielski 1931		72	0.51	82	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	48	0.05	68	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		48	0.63	28	0.00	56	0.03	76	0.03	52	0.06	71	0.04
Osinska 1989		33	0.67	35	0.00	43	0.05	39	0.11	40	0.13	41	0.12
Pachmann 1927		44	0.64	42	0.00	31	0.06	29	0.18	7	0.54	25	0.31
Paderewski 1930		50	0.63	29	0.00	69	0.03	68	0.03	36	0.13	61	0.06
Perlemuter 1992		9	0.78	10	0.02	7	0.15	6	0.53	1	0.64	4	0.58
Pierdomenico 2008		37	0.66	65	0.00	40	0.04	35	0.13	20	0.30	33	0.20
Poblocka 1999		23	0.72	36	0.00	42	0.04	36	0.12	33	0.21	38	0.16
Rabcewiczowa 1932		49	0.63	37	0.00	52	0.04	52	0.04	29	0.23	49	0.10
Rachmaninoff 1923		66	0.57	38	0.00	28	0.07	33	0.15	24	0.27	32	0.20
Rangell 2001		31	0.69	39	0.00	47	0.05	47	0.05	11	0.35	40	0.13
Richter 1976		38	0.66	73	0.00	41	0.05	34	0.13	18	0.30	34	0.20
Rosen 1989		24	0.72	24	0.01	29	0.08	28	0.21	13	0.46	26	0.31
Rosenthal 1930		65	0.57	78	0.00	72	0.03	69	0.03	36	0.20	56	0.08
Rosenthal 1931		71	0.52	27	0.01	38	0.04	42	0.09	14	0.41	36	0.19
Rosenthal 1931b		74	0.50	80	0.00	61	0.03	81	0.03	28	0.23	57	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		59	0.59	53	0.00	67	0.03	65	0.03	32	0.21	58	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		62	0.57	40	0.00	59	0.03	70	0.03	18	0.35	51	0.10
Rossi 2007		80	0.32	74	0.00	77	0.03	71	0.03	44	0.06	67	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.29	79	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	71	0.04	81	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		28	0.70	30	0.00	30	0.06	37	0.12	21	0.43	31	0.23
Rubinstein 1966		21	0.73	9	0.03	14	0.08	15	0.38	2	0.65	7	0.50
Schilhawsky 1960		53	0.62	66	0.00	44	0.04	43	0.08	52	0.05	62	0.06
Shebanova 2002		55	0.61	14	0.01	54	0.03	63	0.03	49	0.06	73	0.04
Smith 1975		18	0.74	57	0.00	17	0.08	24	0.33	21	0.26	28	0.29
Sokolov 2002		40	0.66	44	0.00	68	0.04	57	0.04	61	0.04	66	0.04
Sztompka 1959		54	0.62	46	0.00	55	0.04	62	0.04	40	0.16	55	0.08
Tomsic 1995		1	0.87	3	0.15	2	0.25	3	0.58	1	0.65	1	0.61
Uninsky 1932		60	0.58	47	0.00	50	0.04	58	0.04	34	0.22	53	0.09
Uninsky 1971		35	0.67	50	0.00	49	0.04	56	0.04	29	0.35	42	0.12
Wasowski 1980		69	0.52	91	0.00	36	0.04	32	0.16	49	0.05	52	0.09
Zak 1937		15	0.76	6	0.06	9	0.11	13	0.42	6	0.49	10	0.45
Zak 1951		13	0.77	12	0.01	8	0.15	8	0.47	6	0.50	8	0.48
Average		2	0.87	2	0.15	3	0.23	1	0.63	11	0.41	6	0.51
Random 1		90	-0.14	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	81	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.22	62	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	90	0.02	89	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.01	75	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	82	0.02	91	0.02

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).