Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   9  0.7416  0.019  0.168  0.5358  0.0515  0.16
Ax 1995   13  0.725  0.086  0.1410  0.4840  0.0712  0.18
Bacha 1998   43  0.6440  0.0043  0.0648  0.0654  0.0547  0.05
Barbosa 1983   54  0.6127  0.0039  0.0738  0.0754  0.0540  0.06
BenOr 1989   60  0.5545  0.0057  0.0363  0.0349  0.0663  0.04
Biret 1990   48  0.6361  0.0052  0.0460  0.0462  0.0464  0.04
Brailowsky 1960   47  0.6333  0.0051  0.0455  0.0463  0.0366  0.03
Chiu 1999   15  0.7220  0.0116  0.1515  0.4426  0.207  0.30
Clidat 1994   17  0.7126  0.0025  0.0925  0.2455  0.0528  0.11
Cohen 1997   46  0.6331  0.0045  0.0742  0.0718  0.3419  0.15
Cortot 1951   61  0.5341  0.0060  0.0362  0.0332  0.1145  0.06
Csalog 1996   28  0.6853  0.0034  0.0645  0.0643  0.0641  0.06
Czerny 1989   22  0.7015  0.0113  0.1211  0.4727  0.168  0.27
Ezaki 2006   14  0.7230  0.0022  0.0818  0.3543  0.0520  0.13
Falvay 1989   23  0.7028  0.0028  0.0821  0.2961  0.0427  0.11
Fiorentino 1962   4  0.7625  0.0011  0.207  0.5360  0.0516  0.16
Fliere 1977   5  0.764  0.118  0.1312  0.4631  0.1510  0.26
Fou 1978   39  0.6632  0.0029  0.0928  0.2048  0.0529  0.10
Francois 1956   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Goldenweiser 1946   63  0.5112  0.0262  0.0551  0.0530  0.1531  0.09
Gornostaeva 1994   38  0.6638  0.0037  0.0741  0.0742  0.0643  0.06
Groot 1988   12  0.736  0.047  0.1314  0.4543  0.0617  0.16
Hatto 1993   50  0.6351  0.0048  0.0736  0.0760  0.0458  0.05
Hatto 1997   51  0.6148  0.0053  0.0458  0.0446  0.0652  0.05
Horszowski 1983   62  0.5264  0.0063  0.0552  0.0557  0.0546  0.05
Indjic 2001   52  0.6156  0.0054  0.0549  0.0546  0.0656  0.05
Katin 1996   19  0.7134  0.0031  0.0731  0.1548  0.0533  0.09
Kiepura 1999   53  0.6150  0.0044  0.0740  0.0734  0.0736  0.07
Korecka 1992   59  0.5657  0.0058  0.0461  0.0445  0.0460  0.04
Kushner 1990   58  0.5662  0.0049  0.0550  0.0549  0.0461  0.04
Lilamand 2001   55  0.6047  0.0050  0.0553  0.0557  0.0551  0.05
Luisada 1990   29  0.6842  0.0026  0.0729  0.1851  0.0534  0.09
Luisada 2008   35  0.6752  0.0036  0.0644  0.0653  0.0453  0.05
Lushtak 2004   31  0.6735  0.0035  0.0646  0.0654  0.0554  0.05
Malcuzynski 1951   30  0.6818  0.0117  0.1217  0.3758  0.0425  0.12
Malcuzynski 1961   45  0.6314  0.0142  0.0647  0.0659  0.0449  0.05
Magaloff 1977   7  0.7629  0.0010  0.156  0.5625  0.252  0.37
Magin 1975   56  0.6066  0.0059  0.0459  0.0454  0.0559  0.04
Meguri 1997   34  0.6711  0.0221  0.1023  0.2544  0.0623  0.12
Milkina 1970   8  0.753  0.143  0.162  0.6529  0.203  0.36
Mohovich 1999   33  0.6765  0.0041  0.0835  0.0853  0.0542  0.06
Nezu 2005   32  0.679  0.0227  0.1024  0.2539  0.0721  0.13
Ohlsson 1999   1  0.782  0.152  0.284  0.6327  0.231  0.38
Olejniczak 1990   57  0.5636  0.0061  0.0457  0.0463  0.0465  0.04
Osinska 1989   25  0.6946  0.0023  0.0626  0.2351  0.0526  0.11
Perlemuter 1992   41  0.6519  0.0118  0.1327  0.2031  0.1218  0.15
Poblocka 1999   11  0.7355  0.0014  0.1213  0.4547  0.0614  0.16
Rangell 2001   40  0.6537  0.0046  0.0833  0.0852  0.0544  0.06
Richter 1960   24  0.7022  0.0124  0.0622  0.2752  0.0524  0.12
Richter 1961   36  0.6660  0.0030  0.0730  0.1649  0.0532  0.09
Rosen 1989   26  0.6913  0.0232  0.0732  0.1360  0.0438  0.07
Rubinstein 1939   3  0.781  0.201  0.201  0.6931  0.146  0.31
Rubinstein 1952   18  0.7121  0.0115  0.1516  0.4336  0.0713  0.17
Rubinstein 1966   6  0.768  0.035  0.173  0.6332  0.129  0.27
Rudanovskaya 2007   20  0.717  0.0319  0.1319  0.3321  0.374  0.35
Shebanova 2002   27  0.6944  0.0038  0.0834  0.0842  0.0637  0.07
Smith 1975   10  0.7317  0.0120  0.1420  0.3053  0.0522  0.12
Sztompka 1959   49  0.6323  0.0155  0.0454  0.0438  0.0650  0.05
Tanyel 1992   44  0.6463  0.0056  0.0456  0.0438  0.0655  0.05
Tsujii 2005   2  0.7810  0.024  0.155  0.6253  0.0511  0.18
Uninsky 1959   21  0.7139  0.0033  0.0743  0.0754  0.0448  0.05
Vardi 1988   16  0.7224  0.0012  0.129  0.5026  0.205  0.32
Wasowski 1980   37  0.6649  0.0040  0.0739  0.0752  0.0539  0.06
Zimerman 1975   42  0.6454  0.0047  0.0737  0.0760  0.0457  0.05
Random 1   66  -0.0358  0.0065  0.0265  0.026  0.5030  0.10
Random 2   65  -0.0143  0.0066  0.0166  0.0128  0.1762  0.04
Random 3   64  0.0559  0.0064  0.0264  0.0215  0.3135  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).