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		10	0.65	16	0.01	14	0.13	12	0.54	4	0.56	10	0.55
Anderszewski 2003		55	0.48	34	0.00	23	0.07	28	0.27	20	0.35	29	0.31
Ashkenazy 1981		54	0.49	61	0.00	57	0.04	64	0.04	70	0.04	79	0.04
Bacha 2000		48	0.52	71	0.00	53	0.04	72	0.04	22	0.43	47	0.13
Badura 1965		74	0.39	50	0.00	73	0.05	52	0.05	57	0.04	78	0.04
Barbosa 1983		39	0.55	10	0.01	9	0.13	18	0.44	10	0.52	16	0.48
Biret 1990		61	0.45	89	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	66	0.04	87	0.03
Blet 2003		40	0.54	58	0.00	46	0.05	49	0.05	41	0.15	52	0.09
Block 1995		26	0.59	24	0.00	24	0.07	26	0.31	10	0.46	21	0.38
Blumental 1952		79	0.31	20	0.01	83	0.03	79	0.03	73	0.03	85	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		16	0.63	7	0.02	18	0.13	17	0.46	6	0.61	12	0.53
Brailowsky 1960		17	0.63	8	0.02	27	0.07	27	0.29	3	0.55	17	0.40
Bunin 1987		35	0.56	84	0.00	40	0.06	40	0.15	27	0.33	37	0.22
Bunin 1987b		34	0.56	74	0.00	44	0.07	42	0.14	27	0.32	38	0.21
Chiu 1999		60	0.46	85	0.00	63	0.06	47	0.06	70	0.04	61	0.05
Cohen 1997		78	0.32	47	0.00	74	0.04	66	0.04	36	0.17	56	0.08
Cortot 1951		69	0.42	48	0.00	79	0.05	56	0.05	62	0.04	80	0.04
Csalog 1996		66	0.42	75	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	48	0.07	73	0.04
Czerny 1949		44	0.53	35	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.14	25	0.38	35	0.23
Czerny 1990		36	0.56	62	0.00	41	0.05	38	0.17	57	0.05	53	0.09
Duchoud 2007		63	0.45	76	0.00	72	0.04	59	0.04	68	0.04	77	0.04
Ezaki 2006		2	0.70	38	0.00	7	0.15	5	0.63	8	0.56	6	0.59
Falvay 1989		18	0.61	86	0.00	28	0.08	25	0.31	18	0.32	28	0.31
Farrell 1958		70	0.41	54	0.00	80	0.02	87	0.02	63	0.04	84	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		42	0.54	21	0.01	60	0.05	51	0.05	12	0.47	43	0.15
Fliere 1977		19	0.61	33	0.00	29	0.08	24	0.32	36	0.15	36	0.22
Fou 1978		25	0.59	57	0.00	26	0.08	21	0.37	30	0.35	24	0.36
Francois 1956		14	0.63	19	0.01	13	0.13	14	0.49	13	0.49	15	0.49
Friedman 1923		88	0.12	87	0.00	88	0.03	76	0.03	77	0.03	88	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.12	81	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	65	0.05	86	0.03
Friedman 1930		85	0.23	77	0.00	69	0.03	81	0.03	52	0.05	75	0.04
Garcia 2007		75	0.39	28	0.00	49	0.04	61	0.04	4	0.67	41	0.16
Garcia 2007b		86	0.14	72	0.00	86	0.04	74	0.04	55	0.04	81	0.04
Gierzod 1998		22	0.59	31	0.00	22	0.10	20	0.42	14	0.39	18	0.40
Gornostaeva 1994		7	0.67	11	0.01	12	0.12	10	0.56	12	0.51	13	0.53
Groot 1988		3	0.70	6	0.03	4	0.15	4	0.65	4	0.60	4	0.62
Harasiewicz 1955		31	0.57	12	0.01	2	0.14	9	0.59	7	0.46	14	0.52
Hatto 1993		80	0.30	45	0.00	37	0.08	39	0.15	51	0.05	54	0.09
Hatto 1997		76	0.36	15	0.01	20	0.09	32	0.24	42	0.10	42	0.15
Horowitz 1949		47	0.53	51	0.00	30	0.07	37	0.18	21	0.33	34	0.24
Indjic 1988		81	0.30	36	0.00	36	0.05	43	0.14	58	0.05	55	0.08
Kapell 1951		43	0.54	82	0.00	58	0.04	65	0.04	64	0.04	70	0.04
Kissin 1993		30	0.57	46	0.00	34	0.06	35	0.22	39	0.19	39	0.20
Kushner 1989		37	0.56	90	0.00	55	0.04	71	0.04	55	0.04	69	0.04
Luisada 1991		45	0.53	91	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.11	63	0.05	57	0.07
Lushtak 2004		29	0.58	14	0.01	19	0.10	19	0.43	23	0.38	19	0.40
Malcuzynski 1961		8	0.66	63	0.00	17	0.12	16	0.46	32	0.27	25	0.35
Magaloff 1978		12	0.64	55	0.00	16	0.11	15	0.48	20	0.31	20	0.39
Magin 1975		65	0.44	69	0.00	71	0.04	63	0.04	55	0.05	68	0.04
Michalowski 1933		82	0.27	64	0.00	77	0.04	70	0.04	66	0.04	72	0.04
Milkina 1970		32	0.57	25	0.00	42	0.06	44	0.12	34	0.22	40	0.16
Mohovich 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Moravec 1969		62	0.45	78	0.00	78	0.04	67	0.04	65	0.04	64	0.04
Morozova 2008		53	0.49	43	0.00	48	0.07	46	0.07	66	0.04	62	0.05
Neighaus 1950		6	0.68	5	0.03	3	0.22	2	0.74	8	0.57	2	0.65
Niedzielski 1931		68	0.42	53	0.00	75	0.04	68	0.04	53	0.05	67	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		50	0.52	83	0.00	59	0.04	62	0.04	62	0.04	71	0.04
Osinska 1989		28	0.58	42	0.00	35	0.08	29	0.25	25	0.24	33	0.24
Pachmann 1927		41	0.54	17	0.01	38	0.06	36	0.20	15	0.51	26	0.32
Paderewski 1930		49	0.52	22	0.00	54	0.04	75	0.04	26	0.22	51	0.09
Perlemuter 1992		9	0.65	9	0.02	8	0.17	6	0.62	4	0.66	3	0.64
Pierdomenico 2008		58	0.47	59	0.00	64	0.03	82	0.03	43	0.13	58	0.06
Poblocka 1999		21	0.60	23	0.00	32	0.07	30	0.25	27	0.26	32	0.25
Rabcewiczowa 1932		33	0.56	30	0.00	39	0.06	34	0.23	13	0.57	23	0.36
Rachmaninoff 1923		71	0.41	65	0.00	47	0.05	58	0.05	55	0.04	65	0.04
Rangell 2001		24	0.59	32	0.00	33	0.08	33	0.24	14	0.42	27	0.32
Richter 1976		46	0.53	41	0.00	52	0.05	55	0.05	30	0.25	49	0.11
Rosen 1989		11	0.65	13	0.01	15	0.13	11	0.55	8	0.59	8	0.57
Rosenthal 1930		64	0.44	44	0.00	70	0.03	77	0.03	32	0.32	50	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		73	0.39	79	0.00	66	0.03	83	0.03	18	0.45	48	0.12
Rosenthal 1931b		72	0.40	70	0.00	67	0.05	53	0.05	14	0.46	44	0.15
Rosenthal 1931c		56	0.48	27	0.00	50	0.04	60	0.04	16	0.48	46	0.14
Rosenthal 1931d		67	0.42	88	0.00	68	0.06	48	0.06	21	0.34	45	0.14
Rossi 2007		84	0.24	52	0.00	84	0.04	73	0.04	56	0.03	83	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.25	80	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	49	0.05	66	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		20	0.61	26	0.00	21	0.09	23	0.33	20	0.42	22	0.37
Rubinstein 1966		5	0.68	2	0.11	5	0.14	3	0.67	1	0.75	1	0.71
Schilhawsky 1960		59	0.46	73	0.00	65	0.03	78	0.03	52	0.05	74	0.04
Shebanova 2002		51	0.50	18	0.01	62	0.05	50	0.05	61	0.05	63	0.05
Smith 1975		23	0.59	60	0.00	25	0.08	22	0.35	35	0.23	31	0.28
Sokolov 2002		38	0.56	37	0.00	56	0.05	57	0.05	49	0.06	60	0.05
Sztompka 1959		52	0.50	56	0.00	61	0.05	54	0.05	47	0.07	59	0.06
Tomsic 1995		4	0.70	29	0.00	6	0.13	7	0.61	6	0.55	7	0.58
Uninsky 1932		57	0.48	39	0.00	51	0.04	69	0.04	66	0.05	76	0.04
Uninsky 1971		27	0.58	40	0.00	31	0.08	31	0.25	31	0.34	30	0.29
Wasowski 1980		77	0.34	66	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	67	0.04	82	0.03
Zak 1937		15	0.63	3	0.06	11	0.14	13	0.52	8	0.55	11	0.53
Zak 1951		13	0.64	4	0.04	10	0.14	8	0.60	6	0.60	5	0.60
Average		1	0.77	1	0.49	1	0.49	1	0.79	16	0.38	9	0.55
Random 1		91	-0.10	67	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.07	49	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	73	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.01	68	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	69	0.03	90	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).