Csalog 1996

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   30  0.735  0.038  0.1115  0.4514  0.4011  0.42
Ax 1995   61  0.594  0.0458  0.0461  0.0428  0.1649  0.08
Bacha 1998   52  0.6755  0.0036  0.0647  0.0653  0.0457  0.05
Barbosa 1983   53  0.6424  0.0140  0.0933  0.0929  0.1835  0.13
BenOr 1989   20  0.7714  0.026  0.119  0.495  0.644  0.56
Biret 1990   10  0.7813  0.0217  0.1212  0.4821  0.2814  0.37
Brailowsky 1960   49  0.6853  0.0049  0.0552  0.0529  0.1647  0.09
Chiu 1999   33  0.7348  0.0039  0.0934  0.0913  0.2829  0.16
Clidat 1994   28  0.7446  0.0014  0.0918  0.4110  0.6010  0.50
Cohen 1997   62  0.5840  0.0055  0.0460  0.0418  0.3739  0.12
Cortot 1951   58  0.6054  0.0059  0.0650  0.0643  0.0562  0.05
Csalog 1996   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Czerny 1989   47  0.6831  0.0047  0.0553  0.0530  0.2043  0.10
Ezaki 2006   40  0.7143  0.0052  0.0645  0.0630  0.1545  0.09
Falvay 1989   13  0.789  0.0219  0.1220  0.3636  0.0826  0.17
Fiorentino 1962   14  0.7757  0.0022  0.0927  0.2116  0.4021  0.29
Fliere 1977   19  0.7717  0.0134  0.0837  0.0827  0.1737  0.12
Fou 1978   42  0.7028  0.0127  0.1026  0.2434  0.0833  0.14
Francois 1956   59  0.6066  0.0061  0.0462  0.0446  0.0565  0.04
Goldenweiser 1946   46  0.6934  0.0021  0.1022  0.335  0.4812  0.40
Gornostaeva 1994   41  0.7152  0.0042  0.0744  0.0729  0.2336  0.13
Groot 1988   1  0.821  0.301  0.291  0.654  0.602  0.62
Hatto 1993   23  0.7627  0.0130  0.0630  0.1536  0.0842  0.11
Hatto 1997   22  0.7633  0.0025  0.1021  0.3541  0.0730  0.16
Horszowski 1983   48  0.6812  0.0226  0.1025  0.2725  0.2125  0.24
Indjic 2001   24  0.7537  0.0029  0.0828  0.1935  0.0838  0.12
Katin 1996   5  0.7936  0.0012  0.095  0.5111  0.528  0.51
Kiepura 1999   63  0.5156  0.0063  0.0556  0.0539  0.0555  0.05
Korecka 1992   60  0.6062  0.0062  0.0557  0.0557  0.0463  0.04
Kushner 1990   56  0.6159  0.0050  0.0742  0.0746  0.0554  0.06
Lilamand 2001   38  0.7119  0.0128  0.0829  0.184  0.5518  0.31
Luisada 1990   15  0.7721  0.0111  0.128  0.5030  0.1720  0.29
Luisada 2008   36  0.7245  0.0038  0.0835  0.0836  0.1048  0.09
Lushtak 2004   17  0.7711  0.0224  0.0924  0.2919  0.3816  0.33
Malcuzynski 1951   55  0.6210  0.0246  0.0555  0.0531  0.1350  0.08
Malcuzynski 1961   37  0.7139  0.009  0.0917  0.4228  0.1524  0.25
Magaloff 1977   32  0.7342  0.0044  0.0554  0.0537  0.0660  0.05
Magin 1975   35  0.7225  0.0143  0.0836  0.0844  0.0652  0.07
Meguri 1997   31  0.7341  0.0035  0.0646  0.0613  0.4627  0.17
Milkina 1970   44  0.6944  0.0048  0.0551  0.0544  0.0558  0.05
Mohovich 1999   11  0.7815  0.027  0.104  0.516  0.633  0.57
Nezu 2005   12  0.783  0.104  0.157  0.507  0.546  0.52
Ohlsson 1999   4  0.7926  0.0115  0.1013  0.4623  0.3213  0.38
Olejniczak 1990   6  0.7960  0.0010  0.1210  0.485  0.577  0.52
Osinska 1989   18  0.7735  0.0032  0.0731  0.1341  0.0646  0.09
Perlemuter 1992   43  0.7064  0.0051  0.0558  0.056  0.4032  0.14
Poblocka 1999   9  0.7823  0.0116  0.1214  0.4520  0.2815  0.35
Rangell 2001   45  0.6938  0.0053  0.0839  0.0819  0.3231  0.16
Richter 1960   50  0.6816  0.0154  0.0559  0.0542  0.0559  0.05
Richter 1961   57  0.6132  0.0060  0.0463  0.0442  0.0656  0.05
Rosen 1989   7  0.7951  0.005  0.156  0.516  0.565  0.53
Rubinstein 1939   27  0.7420  0.0133  0.0743  0.0730  0.1640  0.11
Rubinstein 1952   26  0.7430  0.0020  0.1316  0.4329  0.1922  0.29
Rubinstein 1966   16  0.7718  0.0123  0.0923  0.3055  0.0441  0.11
Rudanovskaya 2007   34  0.7358  0.0045  0.0648  0.067  0.5128  0.17
Shebanova 2002   8  0.788  0.023  0.153  0.5215  0.509  0.51
Smith 1975   2  0.812  0.162  0.302  0.581  0.761  0.66
Sztompka 1959   29  0.7461  0.0041  0.0649  0.0619  0.2834  0.13
Tanyel 1992   25  0.7447  0.0031  0.0632  0.129  0.6423  0.28
Tsujii 2005   3  0.806  0.0313  0.0919  0.3925  0.2519  0.31
Uninsky 1959   21  0.767  0.0218  0.1111  0.4826  0.2217  0.32
Vardi 1988   54  0.6229  0.0056  0.0741  0.0728  0.1444  0.10
Wasowski 1980   39  0.7149  0.0037  0.0838  0.0841  0.0751  0.07
Zimerman 1975   51  0.6722  0.0157  0.0740  0.0755  0.0461  0.05
Random 1   66  -0.0565  0.0066  0.0166  0.0165  0.0266  0.01
Random 2   65  0.0563  0.0065  0.0265  0.0217  0.2853  0.07
Random 3   64  0.0750  0.0064  0.0364  0.0339  0.0564  0.04

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).