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		17	0.72	36	0.00	31	0.08	24	0.43	45	0.11	36	0.22
Anderszewski 2003		25	0.70	7	0.02	22	0.06	30	0.33	11	0.37	26	0.35
Ashkenazy 1981		45	0.66	67	0.00	48	0.07	50	0.07	75	0.03	73	0.05
Bacha 2000		15	0.73	64	0.00	14	0.07	13	0.48	3	0.52	10	0.50
Badura 1965		76	0.54	58	0.00	73	0.04	78	0.04	72	0.04	82	0.04
Barbosa 1983		63	0.59	35	0.00	17	0.08	31	0.33	5	0.51	17	0.41
Biret 1990		6	0.78	22	0.01	8	0.15	6	0.58	7	0.54	5	0.56
Blet 2003		44	0.66	41	0.00	55	0.06	56	0.06	32	0.22	53	0.11
Block 1995		70	0.56	18	0.01	23	0.07	36	0.27	11	0.37	28	0.32
Blumental 1952		36	0.68	12	0.01	20	0.06	19	0.46	12	0.28	24	0.36
Boshniakovich 1969		62	0.59	60	0.00	58	0.05	63	0.05	59	0.05	72	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		9	0.75	28	0.00	27	0.08	33	0.30	5	0.52	19	0.39
Bunin 1987		86	0.37	61	0.00	88	0.04	81	0.04	62	0.05	83	0.04
Bunin 1987b		88	0.36	74	0.00	87	0.04	73	0.04	62	0.05	76	0.04
Chiu 1999		41	0.67	24	0.00	18	0.08	28	0.37	14	0.33	25	0.35
Cohen 1997		84	0.50	53	0.00	75	0.04	84	0.04	18	0.34	50	0.12
Cortot 1951		52	0.62	79	0.00	62	0.06	57	0.06	42	0.11	64	0.08
Csalog 1996		57	0.60	54	0.00	36	0.08	38	0.25	3	0.51	23	0.36
Czerny 1949		66	0.57	83	0.00	66	0.05	66	0.05	66	0.04	80	0.04
Czerny 1990		18	0.72	72	0.00	21	0.08	23	0.43	26	0.27	27	0.34
Duchoud 2007		72	0.56	70	0.00	57	0.05	61	0.05	28	0.22	57	0.10
Ezaki 2006		8	0.76	14	0.01	11	0.09	10	0.54	14	0.44	12	0.49
Falvay 1989		30	0.68	17	0.01	53	0.06	59	0.06	5	0.54	39	0.18
Farrell 1958		23	0.70	29	0.00	15	0.08	17	0.46	10	0.51	15	0.48
Ferenczy 1958		51	0.62	44	0.00	61	0.05	64	0.05	29	0.20	56	0.10
Fliere 1977		16	0.72	26	0.00	35	0.08	29	0.35	58	0.04	48	0.12
Fou 1978		14	0.73	13	0.01	16	0.08	11	0.52	7	0.48	11	0.50
Francois 1956		37	0.67	42	0.00	47	0.05	65	0.05	17	0.43	46	0.15
Friedman 1923		56	0.60	51	0.00	70	0.05	67	0.05	66	0.04	85	0.04
Friedman 1923b		58	0.60	68	0.00	69	0.03	85	0.03	59	0.05	84	0.04
Friedman 1930		55	0.61	86	0.00	76	0.04	76	0.04	86	0.03	89	0.03
Garcia 2007		46	0.65	75	0.00	52	0.08	47	0.08	45	0.13	58	0.10
Garcia 2007b		33	0.68	69	0.00	49	0.09	46	0.09	39	0.15	51	0.12
Gierzod 1998		21	0.71	19	0.01	33	0.08	27	0.38	47	0.09	41	0.18
Gornostaeva 1994		38	0.67	49	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	17	0.31	37	0.19
Groot 1988		10	0.74	6	0.03	6	0.17	8	0.56	1	0.63	4	0.59
Harasiewicz 1955		43	0.66	32	0.00	42	0.09	39	0.21	49	0.06	54	0.11
Hatto 1993		68	0.57	39	0.00	63	0.06	54	0.06	69	0.04	75	0.05
Hatto 1997		61	0.59	62	0.00	64	0.06	55	0.06	58	0.05	71	0.05
Horowitz 1949		67	0.57	30	0.00	72	0.04	75	0.04	48	0.08	66	0.06
Indjic 1988		64	0.59	63	0.00	65	0.07	48	0.07	59	0.05	67	0.06
Kapell 1951		19	0.71	31	0.00	9	0.10	7	0.58	17	0.25	20	0.38
Kissin 1993		39	0.67	50	0.00	34	0.08	37	0.27	37	0.18	35	0.22
Kushner 1989		7	0.76	4	0.07	7	0.13	9	0.55	7	0.53	7	0.54
Luisada 1991		20	0.71	15	0.01	25	0.08	18	0.46	35	0.18	29	0.29
Lushtak 2004		28	0.69	48	0.00	24	0.06	26	0.40	11	0.34	22	0.37
Malcuzynski 1961		85	0.49	76	0.00	84	0.05	62	0.05	55	0.04	77	0.04
Magaloff 1978		42	0.66	80	0.00	54	0.06	51	0.06	26	0.27	47	0.13
Magin 1975		48	0.65	45	0.00	39	0.08	35	0.29	37	0.17	34	0.22
Michalowski 1933		74	0.56	81	0.00	80	0.03	87	0.03	69	0.04	88	0.03
Milkina 1970		2	0.82	2	0.23	2	0.34	2	0.73	3	0.63	1	0.68
Mohovich 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Moravec 1969		75	0.54	77	0.00	74	0.03	86	0.03	25	0.40	52	0.11
Morozova 2008		47	0.65	8	0.02	43	0.06	43	0.13	48	0.05	63	0.08
Neighaus 1950		29	0.68	87	0.00	50	0.07	49	0.07	81	0.04	74	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		69	0.57	82	0.00	60	0.06	58	0.06	46	0.05	69	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		22	0.71	16	0.01	28	0.10	12	0.52	26	0.31	18	0.40
Osinska 1989		5	0.78	9	0.02	4	0.19	5	0.66	11	0.53	3	0.59
Pachmann 1927		73	0.56	71	0.00	85	0.04	79	0.04	70	0.03	87	0.03
Paderewski 1930		53	0.62	84	0.00	67	0.04	69	0.04	60	0.03	86	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		27	0.69	56	0.00	38	0.07	41	0.19	36	0.17	38	0.18
Pierdomenico 2008		71	0.56	65	0.00	59	0.06	53	0.06	14	0.41	44	0.16
Poblocka 1999		65	0.58	11	0.01	40	0.08	40	0.21	41	0.14	42	0.17
Rabcewiczowa 1932		35	0.68	66	0.00	46	0.05	68	0.05	32	0.20	55	0.10
Rachmaninoff 1923		34	0.68	37	0.00	41	0.08	42	0.18	38	0.13	45	0.15
Rangell 2001		59	0.60	46	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.12	3	0.51	32	0.25
Richter 1976		87	0.37	55	0.00	86	0.03	88	0.03	50	0.06	78	0.04
Rosen 1989		3	0.80	3	0.11	3	0.23	3	0.72	4	0.60	2	0.66
Rosenthal 1930		80	0.53	88	0.00	78	0.04	82	0.04	50	0.04	81	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		77	0.54	59	0.00	79	0.04	71	0.04	30	0.22	59	0.09
Rosenthal 1931b		79	0.53	89	0.00	81	0.04	83	0.04	30	0.19	61	0.09
Rosenthal 1931c		83	0.51	90	0.00	82	0.04	74	0.04	34	0.19	62	0.09
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.52	91	0.00	83	0.04	77	0.04	39	0.14	65	0.07
Rossi 2007		50	0.62	43	0.00	56	0.05	60	0.05	9	0.51	43	0.16
Rubinstein 1939		40	0.67	33	0.00	32	0.08	34	0.30	8	0.46	21	0.37
Rubinstein 1952		49	0.63	23	0.00	26	0.07	25	0.42	3	0.57	14	0.49
Rubinstein 1966		11	0.74	5	0.07	10	0.10	16	0.47	8	0.51	13	0.49
Schilhawsky 1960		82	0.51	73	0.00	77	0.04	72	0.04	65	0.04	79	0.04
Shebanova 2002		4	0.79	20	0.01	5	0.19	4	0.72	12	0.41	9	0.54
Smith 1975		13	0.74	52	0.00	19	0.06	15	0.47	8	0.42	16	0.44
Sokolov 2002		54	0.61	21	0.01	51	0.06	52	0.06	25	0.24	49	0.12
Sztompka 1959		12	0.74	38	0.00	12	0.08	14	0.48	49	0.07	40	0.18
Tomsic 1995		32	0.68	10	0.01	13	0.06	22	0.44	2	0.66	8	0.54
Uninsky 1932		60	0.59	47	0.00	68	0.04	80	0.04	47	0.09	68	0.06
Uninsky 1971		78	0.53	40	0.00	71	0.04	70	0.04	57	0.06	70	0.05
Wasowski 1980		26	0.69	27	0.00	37	0.07	32	0.32	26	0.20	31	0.25
Zak 1937		24	0.70	25	0.00	30	0.09	21	0.45	42	0.13	33	0.24
Zak 1951		31	0.68	34	0.00	29	0.11	20	0.45	41	0.15	30	0.26
Average		1	0.83	1	0.24	1	0.24	1	0.75	16	0.41	6	0.55
Random 1		91	-0.19	78	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	57	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.16	57	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	84	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.08	85	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	15	0.42	60	0.09

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).