Clidat 1994

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   60  0.3063  0.0035  0.0739  0.0730  0.2730  0.14
Ax 1995   51  0.4118  0.0145  0.0642  0.0633  0.0844  0.07
Bacha 1998   57  0.3836  0.0058  0.0553  0.0549  0.0551  0.05
Barbosa 1983   25  0.494  0.098  0.166  0.5917  0.544  0.56
BenOr 1989   52  0.4057  0.0056  0.0459  0.0449  0.0463  0.04
Biret 1990   14  0.5311  0.0211  0.1511  0.5221  0.3812  0.44
Brailowsky 1960   55  0.4041  0.0041  0.0836  0.0827  0.2727  0.15
Chiu 1999   22  0.5023  0.0032  0.0930  0.1650  0.0538  0.09
Clidat 1994   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Cohen 1997   62  0.2766  0.0062  0.0362  0.0354  0.0464  0.03
Cortot 1951   43  0.4424  0.0052  0.0646  0.0640  0.0556  0.05
Csalog 1996   10  0.5434  0.0013  0.1313  0.4837  0.0822  0.20
Czerny 1989   34  0.4744  0.0024  0.0820  0.3637  0.0824  0.17
Ezaki 2006   26  0.4810  0.0229  0.0831  0.1537  0.0736  0.10
Falvay 1989   2  0.581  0.261  0.263  0.6514  0.377  0.49
Fiorentino 1962   11  0.546  0.0515  0.1123  0.3133  0.1023  0.18
Fliere 1977   41  0.4545  0.0048  0.0647  0.0641  0.0745  0.06
Fou 1978   45  0.4330  0.0053  0.0456  0.0452  0.0559  0.04
Francois 1956   29  0.4825  0.0039  0.0640  0.0619  0.5026  0.17
Goldenweiser 1946   16  0.5129  0.0019  0.1116  0.3917  0.3415  0.36
Gornostaeva 1994   63  0.2651  0.0061  0.0361  0.0349  0.0662  0.04
Groot 1988   7  0.5512  0.0112  0.0912  0.4829  0.1919  0.30
Hatto 1993   24  0.4939  0.0030  0.0729  0.1943  0.0635  0.11
Hatto 1997   19  0.5155  0.0020  0.1019  0.3742  0.0528  0.14
Horszowski 1983   44  0.4459  0.0025  0.1024  0.2829  0.1921  0.23
Indjic 2001   21  0.5062  0.0027  0.0927  0.2544  0.0634  0.12
Katin 1996   9  0.5415  0.019  0.168  0.5722  0.3711  0.46
Kiepura 1999   32  0.4737  0.0037  0.0650  0.0629  0.1637  0.10
Korecka 1992   49  0.4126  0.0059  0.0457  0.0434  0.0752  0.05
Kushner 1990   42  0.4448  0.0036  0.0644  0.0632  0.1439  0.09
Lilamand 2001   50  0.4156  0.0031  0.0732  0.1343  0.0640  0.09
Luisada 1990   54  0.4047  0.0049  0.0643  0.0656  0.0555  0.05
Luisada 2008   47  0.4253  0.0047  0.0551  0.0542  0.0654  0.05
Lushtak 2004   8  0.559  0.035  0.209  0.5614  0.446  0.50
Malcuzynski 1951   61  0.2949  0.0064  0.0265  0.0258  0.0465  0.03
Malcuzynski 1961   39  0.4617  0.0150  0.0834  0.0850  0.0546  0.06
Magaloff 1977   48  0.4154  0.0054  0.0552  0.0553  0.0460  0.04
Magin 1975   36  0.4765  0.0038  0.0641  0.0652  0.0550  0.05
Meguri 1997   15  0.5222  0.0016  0.1115  0.4511  0.5110  0.48
Milkina 1970   1  0.602  0.172  0.282  0.669  0.621  0.64
Mohovich 1999   30  0.4852  0.0040  0.0737  0.0745  0.0549  0.06
Nezu 2005   17  0.5150  0.0034  0.1033  0.1030  0.1533  0.12
Ohlsson 1999   5  0.563  0.093  0.214  0.6313  0.552  0.59
Olejniczak 1990   35  0.4713  0.0151  0.0554  0.0549  0.0557  0.05
Osinska 1989   18  0.5114  0.0123  0.0822  0.3128  0.2220  0.26
Perlemuter 1992   56  0.3933  0.0060  0.0360  0.0342  0.0558  0.04
Poblocka 1999   4  0.5620  0.016  0.247  0.5818  0.455  0.51
Rangell 2001   31  0.4760  0.0026  0.0921  0.3324  0.4214  0.37
Richter 1960   40  0.4546  0.0044  0.0649  0.0651  0.0553  0.05
Richter 1961   27  0.4831  0.0033  0.0835  0.0838  0.0742  0.07
Rosen 1989   28  0.4838  0.0042  0.0645  0.0629  0.3529  0.14
Rubinstein 1939   38  0.4643  0.0028  0.0828  0.2133  0.0732  0.12
Rubinstein 1952   33  0.4716  0.0117  0.1018  0.3825  0.2617  0.31
Rubinstein 1966   3  0.585  0.054  0.251  0.7215  0.463  0.58
Rudanovskaya 2007   20  0.5121  0.0021  0.0825  0.2814  0.4116  0.34
Shebanova 2002   6  0.567  0.057  0.175  0.5920  0.408  0.49
Smith 1975   23  0.5032  0.0018  0.1017  0.3816  0.4313  0.40
Sztompka 1959   37  0.4619  0.0122  0.0826  0.2520  0.3718  0.30
Tanyel 1992   59  0.3561  0.0055  0.0458  0.0441  0.0848  0.06
Tsujii 2005   12  0.5427  0.0014  0.1414  0.4745  0.0625  0.17
Uninsky 1959   13  0.548  0.0410  0.1410  0.5314  0.439  0.48
Vardi 1988   46  0.4328  0.0043  0.0738  0.0744  0.0647  0.06
Wasowski 1980   53  0.4040  0.0046  0.0648  0.0625  0.2631  0.12
Zimerman 1975   58  0.3742  0.0057  0.0555  0.0554  0.0461  0.04
Random 1   65  0.0235  0.0066  0.0166  0.0137  0.0566  0.02
Random 2   64  0.0664  0.0065  0.0263  0.0222  0.2643  0.07
Random 3   66  0.0158  0.0063  0.0264  0.0214  0.3841  0.09

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).