Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   53  0.5429  0.0029  0.0526  0.1460  0.0431  0.07
Ax 1995   48  0.5438  0.0057  0.0540  0.0562  0.0461  0.04
Bacha 1998   37  0.5814  0.018  0.0924  0.1554  0.0521  0.09
Barbosa 1983   63  0.4528  0.0032  0.0531  0.0958  0.0528  0.07
BenOr 1989   42  0.5620  0.0120  0.0720  0.1962  0.0424  0.09
Biret 1990   34  0.5960  0.0034  0.0542  0.0561  0.0463  0.04
Brailowsky 1960   55  0.5365  0.0060  0.0636  0.0661  0.0536  0.05
Chiu 1999   46  0.5540  0.0058  0.0462  0.0463  0.0453  0.04
Clidat 1994   47  0.5517  0.0146  0.0549  0.0557  0.0542  0.05
Cohen 1997   60  0.4754  0.0062  0.0460  0.0448  0.0560  0.04
Cortot 1951   62  0.4551  0.0061  0.0458  0.0462  0.0366  0.03
Csalog 1996   8  0.6434  0.0014  0.0814  0.3559  0.0512  0.13
Czerny 1989   35  0.5845  0.0049  0.0545  0.0562  0.0455  0.04
Ezaki 2006   33  0.5933  0.0051  0.0455  0.0453  0.0547  0.04
Falvay 1989   27  0.6164  0.0040  0.0735  0.0761  0.0438  0.05
Fiorentino 1962   23  0.6156  0.0036  0.0638  0.0660  0.0444  0.05
Fliere 1977   20  0.6211  0.0119  0.0816  0.3046  0.0611  0.13
Fou 1978   56  0.5262  0.0042  0.0452  0.0459  0.0554  0.04
Francois 1956   40  0.5718  0.0133  0.0550  0.0554  0.0546  0.05
Goldenweiser 1946   38  0.5726  0.0052  0.0548  0.0561  0.0451  0.04
Gornostaeva 1994   61  0.4663  0.0056  0.0457  0.0462  0.0462  0.04
Groot 1988   6  0.6416  0.0115  0.078  0.4162  0.0414  0.13
Hatto 1993   25  0.6153  0.0038  0.0546  0.0562  0.0464  0.04
Hatto 1997   26  0.6150  0.0035  0.0541  0.0562  0.0457  0.04
Horszowski 1983   24  0.6135  0.0043  0.0454  0.0462  0.0449  0.04
Indjic 2001   22  0.6257  0.0039  0.0834  0.0862  0.0434  0.06
Katin 1996   5  0.6443  0.0010  0.0710  0.3855  0.058  0.14
Kiepura 1999   58  0.4930  0.0053  0.0463  0.0460  0.0448  0.04
Korecka 1992   36  0.5827  0.0044  0.0453  0.0444  0.0639  0.05
Kushner 1990   49  0.5458  0.0031  0.0432  0.0959  0.0432  0.06
Lilamand 2001   31  0.5925  0.0021  0.0722  0.1734  0.0916  0.12
Luisada 1990   44  0.559  0.0245  0.0459  0.0462  0.0458  0.04
Luisada 2008   50  0.5439  0.0048  0.0637  0.0658  0.0440  0.05
Lushtak 2004   21  0.626  0.0712  0.089  0.3960  0.0417  0.12
Malcuzynski 1951   45  0.5544  0.0017  0.0719  0.2056  0.0520  0.10
Malcuzynski 1961   52  0.5415  0.0118  0.0817  0.2160  0.0518  0.10
Magaloff 1977   43  0.5555  0.0054  0.0456  0.0451  0.0641  0.05
Magin 1975   19  0.6252  0.0016  0.0615  0.3246  0.067  0.14
Meguri 1997   30  0.5919  0.0123  0.0818  0.2062  0.0423  0.09
Milkina 1970   13  0.6341  0.0030  0.0529  0.1058  0.0527  0.07
Mohovich 1999   1  0.663  0.116  0.195  0.4658  0.0410  0.14
Nezu 2005   41  0.5647  0.0037  0.0833  0.0862  0.0433  0.06
Ohlsson 1999   2  0.6612  0.015  0.172  0.5559  0.044  0.15
Olejniczak 1990   17  0.6210  0.0124  0.0623  0.1658  0.0525  0.09
Osinska 1989   7  0.6422  0.009  0.0811  0.3762  0.0415  0.12
Perlemuter 1992   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Poblocka 1999   32  0.5942  0.0047  0.0451  0.0462  0.0452  0.04
Rangell 2001   28  0.6023  0.0027  0.0527  0.1263  0.0335  0.06
Richter 1960   51  0.547  0.0526  0.0530  0.1055  0.0529  0.07
Richter 1961   59  0.4836  0.0063  0.0639  0.0660  0.0537  0.05
Rosen 1989   11  0.6321  0.0028  0.0625  0.1460  0.0430  0.07
Rubinstein 1939   15  0.6231  0.004  0.156  0.4258  0.056  0.14
Rubinstein 1952   12  0.631  0.271  0.271  0.5857  0.052  0.17
Rubinstein 1966   16  0.622  0.132  0.264  0.4662  0.055  0.15
Rudanovskaya 2007   18  0.6246  0.0050  0.0543  0.0559  0.0459  0.04
Shebanova 2002   9  0.6424  0.0013  0.0912  0.3758  0.059  0.14
Smith 1975   10  0.635  0.077  0.177  0.4248  0.063  0.16
Sztompka 1959   4  0.654  0.093  0.163  0.5148  0.061  0.17
Tanyel 1992   29  0.608  0.0225  0.0528  0.1151  0.0626  0.08
Tsujii 2005   3  0.6649  0.0011  0.1013  0.3662  0.0513  0.13
Uninsky 1959   14  0.6313  0.0122  0.0721  0.1752  0.0522  0.09
Vardi 1988   54  0.5437  0.0055  0.0461  0.0453  0.0556  0.04
Wasowski 1980   57  0.5248  0.0059  0.0544  0.0559  0.0450  0.04
Zimerman 1975   39  0.5732  0.0041  0.0547  0.0556  0.0545  0.05
Random 1   66  -0.0261  0.0066  0.0166  0.0116  0.2643  0.05
Random 2   64  0.0166  0.0064  0.0264  0.025  0.4819  0.10
Random 3   65  -0.0159  0.0065  0.0265  0.0244  0.0465  0.03

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).