Random 1

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   65  -0.1840  0.0058  0.0360  0.0366  0.0259  0.02
Ax 1995   39  -0.1019  0.0123  0.0426  0.1366  0.0224  0.05
Bacha 1998   14  -0.0532  0.0036  0.0448  0.0466  0.0235  0.03
Barbosa 1983   53  -0.1428  0.0146  0.0352  0.0367  0.0151  0.02
BenOr 1989   67  -0.1965  0.0067  0.0167  0.0167  0.0167  0.01
Biret 1990   47  -0.1133  0.0031  0.0431  0.0866  0.0231  0.04
Brailowsky 1960   40  -0.1039  0.0021  0.0721  0.1966  0.0217  0.06
Chiu 1999   18  -0.0614  0.0218  0.0620  0.1966  0.0218  0.06
Clidat 1994   62  -0.1651  0.0057  0.0359  0.0366  0.0154  0.02
Cohen 1997   32  -0.0911  0.0265  0.0265  0.0266  0.0260  0.02
Cortot 1951   1  0.075  0.074  0.173  0.5066  0.024  0.10
Csalog 1996   63  -0.1759  0.0066  0.0266  0.0267  0.0166  0.01
Czerny 1989   2  0.021  0.141  0.142  0.5466  0.022  0.10
Ezaki 2006   45  -0.1149  0.0032  0.0432  0.0867  0.0132  0.03
Falvay 1989   54  -0.1466  0.0052  0.0451  0.0466  0.0234  0.03
Fiorentino 1962   31  -0.0956  0.0047  0.0447  0.0466  0.0243  0.03
Fliere 1977   35  -0.1021  0.0115  0.0812  0.2766  0.0212  0.07
Fou 1978   66  -0.1825  0.0163  0.0264  0.0266  0.0247  0.02
Francois 1956   8  -0.047  0.046  0.126  0.3766  0.028  0.09
Goldenweiser 1946   34  -0.1038  0.0043  0.0445  0.0466  0.0233  0.03
Gornostaeva 1994   44  -0.1127  0.0144  0.0440  0.0467  0.0162  0.02
Groot 1988   58  -0.1567  0.0054  0.0356  0.0366  0.0263  0.02
Hatto 1993   50  -0.1258  0.0038  0.0450  0.0467  0.0164  0.02
Hatto 1997   61  -0.1547  0.0040  0.0438  0.0467  0.0152  0.02
Horszowski 1983   28  -0.0915  0.0234  0.0441  0.0467  0.0145  0.02
Indjic 2001   51  -0.1363  0.0039  0.0634  0.0667  0.0158  0.02
Katin 1996   57  -0.1460  0.0061  0.0357  0.0367  0.0149  0.02
Kiepura 1999   4  0.003  0.123  0.214  0.4566  0.025  0.09
Korecka 1992   6  -0.0217  0.019  0.109  0.3466  0.029  0.08
Kushner 1990   17  -0.066  0.0513  0.0819  0.1966  0.0219  0.06
Lilamand 2001   7  -0.048  0.0312  0.1111  0.2767  0.0123  0.05
Luisada 1990   29  -0.0931  0.0025  0.0523  0.1666  0.0220  0.06
Luisada 2008   25  -0.0853  0.0037  0.0449  0.0466  0.0240  0.03
Lushtak 2004   11  -0.0524  0.0116  0.0914  0.2466  0.0215  0.07
Malcuzynski 1951   21  -0.0716  0.018  0.105  0.3966  0.026  0.09
Malcuzynski 1961   3  0.022  0.132  0.191  0.5466  0.023  0.10
Magaloff 1977   49  -0.1241  0.0051  0.0535  0.0567  0.0153  0.02
Magin 1975   30  -0.0910  0.0217  0.0517  0.2167  0.0122  0.05
Meguri 1997   37  -0.1023  0.0145  0.0437  0.0466  0.0238  0.03
Milkina 1970   9  -0.0462  0.0033  0.0433  0.0766  0.0228  0.04
Mohovich 1999   12  -0.0543  0.0027  0.0428  0.1066  0.0230  0.04
Nezu 2005   15  -0.0536  0.0035  0.0439  0.0466  0.0242  0.03
Ohlsson 1999   52  -0.1426  0.0149  0.0443  0.0467  0.0150  0.02
Olejniczak 1990   59  -0.1554  0.0064  0.0263  0.0266  0.0265  0.02
Osinska 1989   19  -0.0657  0.0026  0.0625  0.1366  0.0221  0.05
Perlemuter 1992   23  -0.0818  0.0122  0.0622  0.1767  0.0125  0.04
Poblocka 1999   43  -0.1152  0.0048  0.0353  0.0366  0.0246  0.02
Rangell 2001   22  -0.0745  0.0042  0.0536  0.0566  0.0244  0.03
Richter 1960   10  -0.0513  0.0211  0.098  0.3566  0.0210  0.08
Richter 1961   20  -0.0720  0.0114  0.0715  0.2466  0.0213  0.07
Rosen 1989   56  -0.1455  0.0062  0.0354  0.0366  0.0257  0.02
Rubinstein 1939   48  -0.1250  0.0030  0.0430  0.0966  0.0227  0.04
Rubinstein 1952   13  -0.0534  0.0010  0.097  0.3766  0.027  0.09
Rubinstein 1966   24  -0.0830  0.0019  0.0613  0.2566  0.0214  0.07
Rudanovskaya 2007   36  -0.1048  0.0055  0.0362  0.0367  0.0155  0.02
Shebanova 2002   41  -0.1122  0.0141  0.0446  0.0466  0.0241  0.03
Smith 1975   26  -0.089  0.0320  0.0618  0.1967  0.0126  0.04
Sztompka 1959   38  -0.1046  0.0028  0.0527  0.1067  0.0137  0.03
Tanyel 1992   33  -0.1042  0.0029  0.0429  0.0966  0.0229  0.04
Tsujii 2005   55  -0.1461  0.0060  0.0358  0.0366  0.0256  0.02
Uninsky 1959   64  -0.1744  0.0053  0.0444  0.0466  0.0236  0.03
Vardi 1988   42  -0.1137  0.0056  0.0355  0.0366  0.0248  0.02
Wasowski 1980   27  -0.0929  0.0124  0.0524  0.1666  0.0216  0.06
Zimerman 1975   60  -0.1535  0.0059  0.0361  0.0367  0.0161  0.02
Average   46  -0.1164  0.0050  0.0442  0.0466  0.0239  0.03
Random 1   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Random 2   16  -0.064  0.105  0.1116  0.2414  0.361  0.29
Random 3   5  0.0012  0.027  0.0810  0.2966  0.0211  0.08

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).