Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   22  0.6326  0.0012  0.1710  0.4950  0.0612  0.17
Ax 1995   16  0.635  0.028  0.207  0.5743  0.077  0.20
Bacha 1998   36  0.5930  0.0039  0.0736  0.0749  0.0538  0.06
Barbosa 1983   58  0.5431  0.0041  0.0639  0.0653  0.0640  0.06
BenOr 1989   57  0.5462  0.0057  0.0649  0.0659  0.0459  0.05
Biret 1990   38  0.5939  0.0040  0.0642  0.0651  0.0645  0.06
Brailowsky 1960   23  0.6329  0.0019  0.1122  0.3253  0.0520  0.13
Chiu 1999   24  0.6223  0.0024  0.0824  0.2237  0.0723  0.12
Clidat 1994   28  0.6111  0.0126  0.0725  0.2242  0.0724  0.12
Cohen 1997   60  0.5047  0.0061  0.0463  0.0437  0.0844  0.06
Cortot 1951   62  0.4849  0.0062  0.0552  0.0556  0.0465  0.04
Csalog 1996   27  0.6244  0.0037  0.0644  0.0635  0.0741  0.06
Czerny 1989   30  0.6041  0.0020  0.1020  0.3561  0.0521  0.13
Ezaki 2006   19  0.6353  0.0025  0.0821  0.3536  0.099  0.18
Falvay 1989   14  0.6418  0.0018  0.1016  0.4157  0.0517  0.14
Fiorentino 1962   10  0.6540  0.0016  0.0718  0.3854  0.0715  0.16
Fliere 1977   6  0.673  0.119  0.239  0.4935  0.085  0.20
Fou 1978   44  0.5825  0.0029  0.0731  0.1762  0.0433  0.08
Francois 1956   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Goldenweiser 1946   61  0.4928  0.0060  0.0460  0.0442  0.0647  0.05
Gornostaeva 1994   51  0.5646  0.0051  0.0646  0.0651  0.0558  0.05
Groot 1988   13  0.6510  0.0110  0.1315  0.4263  0.0422  0.13
Hatto 1993   41  0.5966  0.0047  0.0558  0.0555  0.0660  0.05
Hatto 1997   39  0.5955  0.0048  0.0737  0.0761  0.0453  0.05
Horszowski 1983   63  0.4437  0.0063  0.0650  0.0652  0.0546  0.05
Indjic 2001   42  0.5956  0.0050  0.0553  0.0558  0.0556  0.05
Katin 1996   18  0.6350  0.0030  0.0829  0.1846  0.0628  0.10
Kiepura 1999   54  0.5435  0.0052  0.0647  0.0645  0.0637  0.06
Korecka 1992   53  0.5459  0.0056  0.0556  0.0548  0.0551  0.05
Kushner 1990   59  0.5343  0.0035  0.0835  0.0860  0.0439  0.06
Lilamand 2001   56  0.5454  0.0058  0.0462  0.0438  0.0842  0.06
Luisada 1990   31  0.6042  0.0022  0.0826  0.2252  0.0529  0.10
Luisada 2008   29  0.6132  0.0031  0.0827  0.2045  0.0626  0.11
Lushtak 2004   32  0.6058  0.0034  0.0934  0.0959  0.0443  0.06
Malcuzynski 1951   15  0.646  0.026  0.2211  0.4744  0.0613  0.17
Malcuzynski 1961   33  0.6034  0.0032  0.0930  0.1858  0.0531  0.09
Magaloff 1977   12  0.6513  0.0111  0.148  0.5422  0.233  0.35
Magin 1975   43  0.5860  0.0044  0.0651  0.0656  0.0550  0.05
Meguri 1997   47  0.5812  0.0128  0.0732  0.1645  0.0532  0.09
Milkina 1970   3  0.682  0.282  0.312  0.6829  0.242  0.40
Mohovich 1999   26  0.6261  0.0033  0.0933  0.0953  0.0536  0.07
Nezu 2005   20  0.6336  0.0015  0.0719  0.3857  0.0519  0.14
Ohlsson 1999   1  0.721  0.391  0.381  0.7524  0.261  0.44
Olejniczak 1990   55  0.5451  0.0059  0.0557  0.0553  0.0561  0.05
Osinska 1989   17  0.6327  0.0021  0.1314  0.4251  0.0614  0.16
Perlemuter 1992   49  0.5716  0.0145  0.0554  0.0550  0.0548  0.05
Poblocka 1999   11  0.6533  0.0013  0.1912  0.4760  0.0516  0.15
Rangell 2001   50  0.5752  0.0054  0.0559  0.0555  0.0464  0.04
Richter 1960   34  0.6019  0.0038  0.0641  0.0659  0.0452  0.05
Richter 1961   52  0.5548  0.0042  0.0645  0.0652  0.0549  0.05
Rosen 1989   21  0.638  0.0127  0.0728  0.1950  0.0530  0.10
Rubinstein 1939   5  0.687  0.023  0.154  0.6740  0.074  0.22
Rubinstein 1952   7  0.674  0.034  0.156  0.6448  0.068  0.20
Rubinstein 1966   4  0.6814  0.015  0.183  0.6861  0.0511  0.18
Rudanovskaya 2007   25  0.6221  0.0036  0.0643  0.0621  0.2027  0.11
Shebanova 2002   37  0.5945  0.0043  0.0648  0.0661  0.0554  0.05
Smith 1975   8  0.6617  0.0017  0.1117  0.4037  0.0810  0.18
Sztompka 1959   40  0.5924  0.0049  0.0461  0.0456  0.0563  0.04
Tanyel 1992   46  0.5822  0.0053  0.0640  0.0659  0.0455  0.05
Tsujii 2005   2  0.709  0.017  0.265  0.6752  0.066  0.20
Uninsky 1959   9  0.6520  0.0014  0.0813  0.4263  0.0325  0.11
Vardi 1988   35  0.5915  0.0123  0.0723  0.3040  0.0718  0.14
Wasowski 1980   48  0.5838  0.0046  0.0555  0.0560  0.0462  0.04
Zimerman 1975   45  0.5857  0.0055  0.0638  0.0662  0.0557  0.05
Random 1   66  -0.0265  0.0065  0.0265  0.0214  0.3034  0.08
Random 2   65  -0.0163  0.0066  0.0166  0.0142  0.0566  0.02
Random 3   64  0.0264  0.0064  0.0364  0.0322  0.2435  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).