Chiu 1999

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   62  0.2464  0.0046  0.0737  0.0737  0.0840  0.07
Ax 1995   45  0.4734  0.0028  0.1023  0.2913  0.5014  0.38
Bacha 1998   29  0.5312  0.0120  0.0726  0.256  0.5713  0.38
Barbosa 1983   59  0.3828  0.0016  0.1218  0.3620  0.4412  0.40
BenOr 1989   51  0.4346  0.0044  0.0742  0.0739  0.0741  0.07
Biret 1990   43  0.4838  0.0041  0.0459  0.0441  0.0659  0.05
Brailowsky 1960   44  0.4742  0.0032  0.1032  0.1911  0.5420  0.32
Chiu 1999   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Clidat 1994   37  0.5023  0.0038  0.0550  0.0530  0.1637  0.09
Cohen 1997   61  0.2944  0.0062  0.0556  0.0541  0.0556  0.05
Cortot 1951   32  0.5165  0.0050  0.0741  0.0745  0.0548  0.06
Csalog 1996   9  0.6020  0.0010  0.179  0.5029  0.2717  0.37
Czerny 1989   46  0.4743  0.0039  0.0647  0.0646  0.0551  0.05
Ezaki 2006   41  0.4926  0.0024  0.0728  0.2327  0.2329  0.23
Falvay 1989   14  0.5810  0.0119  0.0819  0.3639  0.0631  0.15
Fiorentino 1962   30  0.5247  0.0049  0.0739  0.0749  0.0647  0.06
Fliere 1977   28  0.5339  0.0030  0.0729  0.2218  0.3225  0.27
Fou 1978   22  0.5419  0.0015  0.1412  0.4219  0.3118  0.36
Francois 1956   5  0.615  0.0611  0.1215  0.393  0.748  0.54
Goldenweiser 1946   16  0.5714  0.0121  0.0724  0.2820  0.3123  0.29
Gornostaeva 1994   60  0.3066  0.0061  0.0461  0.0441  0.0757  0.05
Groot 1988   21  0.5521  0.0027  0.0822  0.2934  0.0832  0.15
Hatto 1993   12  0.5830  0.0017  0.1011  0.4325  0.3415  0.38
Hatto 1997   17  0.5731  0.0022  0.0620  0.3626  0.2522  0.30
Horszowski 1983   55  0.4113  0.0137  0.0648  0.0638  0.0643  0.06
Indjic 2001   13  0.5845  0.0026  0.0821  0.3427  0.2524  0.29
Katin 1996   23  0.5425  0.0018  0.0817  0.3732  0.1628  0.24
Kiepura 1999   42  0.4818  0.0048  0.0646  0.0645  0.0642  0.06
Korecka 1992   25  0.5432  0.0051  0.0736  0.0725  0.3630  0.16
Kushner 1990   50  0.4415  0.0131  0.0930  0.2120  0.3526  0.27
Lilamand 2001   47  0.4624  0.0043  0.0738  0.0748  0.0646  0.06
Luisada 1990   38  0.4955  0.0023  0.0725  0.2647  0.0635  0.12
Luisada 2008   3  0.629  0.054  0.222  0.671  0.722  0.69
Lushtak 2004   40  0.4961  0.0047  0.0933  0.0946  0.0638  0.07
Malcuzynski 1951   34  0.5022  0.0040  0.0554  0.0513  0.4733  0.15
Malcuzynski 1961   8  0.604  0.075  0.246  0.5814  0.507  0.54
Magaloff 1977   31  0.5152  0.0033  0.0835  0.0822  0.2334  0.14
Magin 1975   24  0.5440  0.0013  0.1013  0.4223  0.3216  0.37
Meguri 1997   54  0.4258  0.0060  0.0362  0.0356  0.0363  0.03
Milkina 1970   1  0.663  0.143  0.323  0.674  0.683  0.67
Mohovich 1999   7  0.612  0.142  0.245  0.6212  0.594  0.60
Nezu 2005   15  0.5757  0.0035  0.0834  0.0845  0.0639  0.07
Ohlsson 1999   2  0.631  0.271  0.271  0.704  0.681  0.69
Olejniczak 1990   26  0.5437  0.0036  0.0743  0.0736  0.0649  0.06
Osinska 1989   48  0.4554  0.0059  0.0458  0.0461  0.0362  0.03
Perlemuter 1992   39  0.4927  0.0052  0.0551  0.0527  0.1936  0.10
Poblocka 1999   4  0.6217  0.017  0.174  0.6210  0.545  0.58
Rangell 2001   57  0.4049  0.0057  0.0557  0.0547  0.0558  0.05
Richter 1960   53  0.4362  0.0054  0.0555  0.0535  0.0652  0.05
Richter 1961   36  0.5056  0.0045  0.0740  0.0745  0.0644  0.06
Rosen 1989   49  0.4548  0.0058  0.0644  0.0652  0.0555  0.05
Rubinstein 1939   33  0.5116  0.0125  0.0827  0.2426  0.2527  0.24
Rubinstein 1952   6  0.617  0.056  0.177  0.565  0.606  0.58
Rubinstein 1966   19  0.556  0.069  0.1810  0.5027  0.2619  0.36
Rudanovskaya 2007   11  0.598  0.0512  0.1314  0.4012  0.4711  0.43
Shebanova 2002   10  0.5929  0.008  0.158  0.5218  0.449  0.48
Smith 1975   20  0.5511  0.0129  0.0631  0.2119  0.4221  0.30
Sztompka 1959   27  0.5433  0.0014  0.1016  0.378  0.5710  0.46
Tanyel 1992   63  0.2263  0.0066  0.0166  0.0164  0.0266  0.01
Tsujii 2005   18  0.5636  0.0034  0.0645  0.0649  0.0554  0.05
Uninsky 1959   35  0.5041  0.0042  0.0549  0.0535  0.0745  0.06
Vardi 1988   58  0.3960  0.0055  0.0552  0.0556  0.0460  0.04
Wasowski 1980   52  0.4353  0.0053  0.0460  0.0443  0.0750  0.05
Zimerman 1975   56  0.4050  0.0056  0.0553  0.0558  0.0461  0.04
Random 1   64  0.0359  0.0065  0.0264  0.0238  0.0564  0.03
Random 2   65  0.0035  0.0063  0.0263  0.0230  0.1453  0.05
Random 3   66  -0.0351  0.0064  0.0265  0.0251  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).