Csalog 1996

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   63  0.265  0.0334  0.0836  0.0825  0.3639  0.17
Ax 1995   52  0.503  0.0635  0.1033  0.1010  0.5933  0.24
Bacha 1998   56  0.4826  0.0060  0.0359  0.0346  0.0564  0.04
Barbosa 1983   55  0.499  0.0222  0.1024  0.341  0.6722  0.48
BenOr 1989   7  0.678  0.034  0.215  0.571  0.705  0.63
Biret 1990   10  0.6723  0.009  0.118  0.531  0.756  0.63
Brailowsky 1960   61  0.4562  0.0061  0.0552  0.0540  0.0760  0.06
Chiu 1999   32  0.6053  0.0028  0.0929  0.279  0.5028  0.37
Clidat 1994   46  0.5447  0.0033  0.0837  0.0813  0.4835  0.20
Cohen 1997   62  0.3049  0.0063  0.0264  0.0245  0.0465  0.03
Cortot 1951   33  0.5927  0.0052  0.0458  0.0418  0.2454  0.10
Csalog 1996   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Czerny 1989   3  0.701  0.401  0.402  0.601  0.742  0.67
Ezaki 2006   20  0.6451  0.0010  0.0918  0.471  0.6711  0.56
Falvay 1989   1  0.732  0.152  0.301  0.641  0.771  0.70
Fiorentino 1962   40  0.5758  0.0047  0.0550  0.0531  0.1458  0.08
Fliere 1977   44  0.5640  0.0055  0.0551  0.0531  0.1357  0.08
Fou 1978   39  0.5822  0.0146  0.0454  0.0439  0.0761  0.05
Francois 1956   53  0.5063  0.0050  0.0455  0.0417  0.5248  0.14
Goldenweiser 1946   18  0.6545  0.0020  0.2114  0.493  0.6412  0.56
Gornostaeva 1994   58  0.4848  0.0048  0.0548  0.0512  0.5244  0.16
Groot 1988   17  0.6621  0.0112  0.1117  0.488  0.5620  0.52
Hatto 1993   11  0.666  0.0325  0.1023  0.367  0.5924  0.46
Hatto 1997   2  0.7013  0.0111  0.119  0.533  0.717  0.61
Horszowski 1983   45  0.5556  0.0021  0.1226  0.3017  0.5227  0.39
Indjic 2001   5  0.6812  0.0224  0.1420  0.447  0.6119  0.52
Katin 1996   15  0.6646  0.0016  0.1213  0.498  0.5916  0.54
Kiepura 1999   59  0.4760  0.0062  0.0645  0.0634  0.0959  0.07
Korecka 1992   49  0.5365  0.0059  0.0361  0.0335  0.0762  0.05
Kushner 1990   54  0.4928  0.0044  0.0740  0.0723  0.2947  0.14
Lilamand 2001   8  0.6716  0.016  0.104  0.571  0.793  0.67
Luisada 1990   26  0.6243  0.0027  0.0825  0.3115  0.5126  0.40
Luisada 2008   51  0.5234  0.0042  0.0741  0.0719  0.3541  0.16
Lushtak 2004   30  0.6014  0.0131  0.0732  0.1416  0.4132  0.24
Malcuzynski 1951   43  0.5659  0.0039  0.0547  0.055  0.5940  0.17
Malcuzynski 1961   14  0.6617  0.015  0.146  0.553  0.5813  0.56
Magaloff 1977   35  0.5936  0.0040  0.0644  0.0610  0.4738  0.17
Magin 1975   28  0.6137  0.0029  0.1427  0.3014  0.4629  0.37
Meguri 1997   31  0.6038  0.0053  0.0453  0.0424  0.3053  0.11
Milkina 1970   9  0.6720  0.0115  0.117  0.546  0.659  0.59
Mohovich 1999   16  0.6624  0.008  0.1012  0.516  0.6214  0.56
Nezu 2005   13  0.6635  0.0032  0.0831  0.156  0.5631  0.29
Ohlsson 1999   27  0.6111  0.0218  0.1115  0.497  0.5917  0.54
Olejniczak 1990   41  0.5764  0.0054  0.0546  0.0519  0.2952  0.12
Osinska 1989   23  0.6439  0.0036  0.0834  0.0820  0.4137  0.18
Perlemuter 1992   47  0.5366  0.0058  0.0362  0.0310  0.5049  0.12
Poblocka 1999   4  0.6941  0.0014  0.1316  0.491  0.708  0.59
Rangell 2001   29  0.6052  0.0043  0.0835  0.0816  0.5434  0.21
Richter 1960   25  0.6231  0.0030  0.0830  0.1716  0.5030  0.29
Richter 1961   48  0.5333  0.0056  0.0642  0.0629  0.2450  0.12
Rosen 1989   36  0.5954  0.0045  0.0456  0.0420  0.5346  0.15
Rubinstein 1939   42  0.5732  0.0041  0.0643  0.0619  0.3745  0.15
Rubinstein 1952   34  0.5918  0.0117  0.0921  0.443  0.6318  0.53
Rubinstein 1966   21  0.6442  0.0013  0.1319  0.449  0.5621  0.50
Rudanovskaya 2007   24  0.6457  0.0038  0.0739  0.0718  0.3742  0.16
Shebanova 2002   22  0.6410  0.023  0.1610  0.523  0.6210  0.57
Smith 1975   12  0.667  0.037  0.093  0.582  0.724  0.65
Sztompka 1959   37  0.5944  0.0037  0.0738  0.0712  0.5236  0.19
Tanyel 1992   50  0.5225  0.0049  0.0549  0.0517  0.5243  0.16
Tsujii 2005   6  0.6830  0.0023  0.1022  0.447  0.5323  0.48
Uninsky 1959   19  0.6515  0.0119  0.1411  0.513  0.6015  0.55
Vardi 1988   38  0.584  0.0426  0.1028  0.294  0.6625  0.44
Wasowski 1980   60  0.4729  0.0057  0.0360  0.0323  0.2955  0.09
Zimerman 1975   57  0.4819  0.0151  0.0457  0.0439  0.0763  0.05
Random 1   65  0.0161  0.0066  0.0166  0.0144  0.0466  0.02
Random 2   64  0.1050  0.0064  0.0363  0.039  0.4651  0.12
Random 3   66  0.0155  0.0065  0.0265  0.0210  0.4456  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).