Cohen 1997

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   2  0.7514  0.019  0.107  0.4014  0.352  0.37
Ashkenazy 1981   35  0.6642  0.0036  0.0735  0.0762  0.0350  0.05
Beliavsky 2004   18  0.7013  0.0122  0.0820  0.2738  0.0620  0.13
BenOr 1989   1  0.752  0.162  0.321  0.6549  0.067  0.20
Biret 1990   8  0.717  0.0416  0.0814  0.3450  0.0523  0.13
Blet 2003   27  0.6840  0.0029  0.0532  0.1160  0.0437  0.07
Block 1995   13  0.7035  0.0018  0.0812  0.3435  0.0714  0.15
Brailowsky 1960   26  0.6817  0.016  0.0911  0.3418  0.333  0.33
Chiu 1999   29  0.6712  0.0211  0.098  0.3947  0.0612  0.15
Clidat 1994   11  0.714  0.074  0.204  0.5015  0.381  0.44
Cohen 1997   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Coop 1987   20  0.6919  0.0120  0.0822  0.2638  0.0913  0.15
Cortot 1951   19  0.7030  0.0023  0.0724  0.2151  0.0432  0.09
Czerny 1949   30  0.6757  0.0035  0.0833  0.0860  0.0539  0.06
Czerny 1949b   55  0.5531  0.0059  0.0449  0.0461  0.0455  0.04
Ezaki 2006   4  0.7339  0.0017  0.0813  0.3445  0.0711  0.15
Falvay 1989   3  0.755  0.063  0.173  0.5835  0.085  0.22
Ferenczy 1958   44  0.6210  0.0242  0.0448  0.0430  0.1534  0.08
Fiorentino 1962   22  0.6858  0.0031  0.0629  0.1351  0.0536  0.08
Fliere 1977   32  0.6659  0.0044  0.0545  0.0544  0.0643  0.05
Fou 1978   43  0.6264  0.0037  0.0542  0.0555  0.0456  0.04
Francois 1956   60  0.4850  0.0062  0.0640  0.0640  0.0742  0.06
Hatto 1997   15  0.7015  0.0126  0.0626  0.1829  0.1410  0.16
Horowitz 1971   56  0.5226  0.0056  0.0363  0.0361  0.0463  0.03
Horowitz 1985   62  0.4365  0.0061  0.0450  0.0463  0.0360  0.03
Indjic 2001   6  0.733  0.088  0.0923  0.2537  0.0722  0.13
Kapell 1951   41  0.6455  0.0047  0.0453  0.0460  0.0457  0.04
Kiepura 1999   10  0.7116  0.0115  0.0816  0.2829  0.224  0.25
Kilenyi 1937   50  0.5860  0.0039  0.0739  0.0756  0.0448  0.05
Kissin 1993   46  0.6254  0.0021  0.0825  0.2047  0.0530  0.10
Kitain 1937   61  0.4748  0.0058  0.0458  0.0435  0.0751  0.05
Kushner 1990   47  0.6121  0.0150  0.0454  0.0436  0.0746  0.05
Levy 1951   48  0.6049  0.0043  0.0452  0.0459  0.0453  0.04
Luisada 1990   21  0.6945  0.0041  0.0736  0.0741  0.0738  0.07
Lushtak 2004   34  0.6623  0.0140  0.0738  0.0752  0.0540  0.06
Lympany 1968   31  0.6733  0.0033  0.0737  0.0728  0.2024  0.12
Magaloff 1977   40  0.6462  0.0025  0.1019  0.2746  0.0621  0.13
Magaloff 1977b   42  0.6336  0.0024  0.0721  0.2652  0.0625  0.12
Magin 1975   33  0.6653  0.0046  0.0546  0.0545  0.0645  0.05
Milkina 1970   12  0.7025  0.0127  0.0630  0.1227  0.1519  0.13
Mohovich 1999   14  0.708  0.025  0.106  0.4354  0.0515  0.15
Nadelmann 1956   17  0.7051  0.0032  0.0631  0.1247  0.0533  0.08
Ohlsson 1999   51  0.5820  0.0152  0.0451  0.0460  0.0361  0.03
Olejniczac 1990   16  0.7044  0.0030  0.0627  0.1759  0.0435  0.08
Olejniczak 1991   28  0.6834  0.0013  0.0918  0.2849  0.0618  0.13
Osinska 1989   5  0.731  0.281  0.272  0.6345  0.076  0.21
Paderewski 1912   59  0.4927  0.0057  0.0460  0.0457  0.0459  0.04
Perahia 1994   53  0.5746  0.0053  0.0459  0.0438  0.0649  0.05
Perlemuter 1986   49  0.6032  0.0051  0.0455  0.0429  0.2031  0.09
Poblocka 1999   7  0.7324  0.0114  0.099  0.3743  0.079  0.16
Rangell 2001   24  0.6829  0.0028  0.0528  0.1734  0.0926  0.12
Risler 1920   58  0.5041  0.0060  0.0456  0.0447  0.0644  0.05
Rosen 1989   23  0.6818  0.0138  0.0641  0.0626  0.2229  0.11
Rubinstein 1939   52  0.5711  0.0254  0.0361  0.0345  0.0554  0.04
Rubinstein 1952   36  0.6537  0.0034  0.0834  0.0857  0.0441  0.06
Rubinstein 1966   37  0.6547  0.0045  0.0544  0.0544  0.0547  0.05
Rummel 1943   57  0.5163  0.0055  0.0362  0.0359  0.0462  0.03
Shebanova 2002   45  0.6238  0.0049  0.0547  0.0558  0.0458  0.04
Smith 1975   39  0.646  0.057  0.1015  0.3354  0.0427  0.11
Szpilman 1948   54  0.5761  0.0048  0.0543  0.0562  0.0352  0.04
Uninsky 1971   38  0.6428  0.0012  0.0817  0.2852  0.0428  0.11
Wasowski 1980   25  0.689  0.0219  0.0910  0.3551  0.0517  0.13
Weissenberg 1971   9  0.7122  0.0110  0.095  0.4941  0.078  0.19
Random 1    63  0.0443  0.0063  0.0457  0.047  0.5216  0.14
Random 2   65  -0.0252  0.0064  0.0264  0.0263  0.0264  0.02
Random 3   64  -0.0156  0.0065  0.0265  0.0252  0.0365  0.02

Note: To load data table give above into Excel, copy and paste the data into a text editor (such as WordPad) first, then copy the text in the editor and past into Excel. You should remove the "target" line from the data before pasting into Excel so that plotting graphs of the data is done properly.

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).