Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   63  0.2938  0.0047  0.0646  0.0652  0.0551  0.05
Ax 1995   45  0.4312  0.0127  0.0926  0.2042  0.0828  0.13
Bacha 1998   29  0.485  0.0225  0.0828  0.1432  0.1524  0.14
Barbosa 1983   57  0.3615  0.0141  0.0556  0.0559  0.0457  0.04
BenOr 1989   33  0.4762  0.0046  0.0835  0.0857  0.0443  0.06
Biret 1990   35  0.476  0.0210  0.1022  0.3047  0.0629  0.13
Brailowsky 1960   3  0.571  0.531  0.521  0.794  0.701  0.74
Chiu 1999   27  0.4821  0.0043  0.0553  0.0541  0.0646  0.05
Clidat 1994   40  0.4510  0.0114  0.0823  0.2732  0.1119  0.17
Cohen 1997   62  0.2932  0.0063  0.0550  0.0563  0.0360  0.04
Cortot 1951   52  0.4251  0.0058  0.0459  0.0457  0.0464  0.04
Csalog 1996   23  0.5036  0.0026  0.0820  0.3354  0.0527  0.13
Czerny 1989   48  0.4354  0.0034  0.0647  0.0659  0.0447  0.05
Ezaki 2006   34  0.4752  0.0023  0.1121  0.3246  0.0623  0.14
Falvay 1989   17  0.5157  0.0016  0.0813  0.4147  0.0621  0.16
Fiorentino 1962   30  0.4820  0.0039  0.0834  0.0857  0.0542  0.06
Fliere 1977   22  0.504  0.0218  0.0924  0.2432  0.1414  0.18
Fou 1978   28  0.4816  0.0138  0.0738  0.0756  0.0537  0.06
Francois 1956   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Goldenweiser 1946   46  0.4329  0.0053  0.0741  0.0761  0.0445  0.05
Gornostaeva 1994   59  0.3441  0.0059  0.0362  0.0348  0.0562  0.04
Groot 1988   25  0.497  0.0224  0.0925  0.2460  0.0432  0.10
Hatto 1993   31  0.4743  0.0042  0.0557  0.0562  0.0463  0.04
Hatto 1997   19  0.5060  0.0036  0.0742  0.0758  0.0539  0.06
Horszowski 1983   61  0.3148  0.0062  0.0558  0.0563  0.0354  0.04
Indjic 2001   18  0.5159  0.0040  0.1033  0.1053  0.0634  0.08
Katin 1996   8  0.5550  0.006  0.226  0.5637  0.098  0.22
Kiepura 1999   47  0.4349  0.0054  0.0736  0.0757  0.0536  0.06
Korecka 1992   24  0.4934  0.0031  0.0632  0.1141  0.0931  0.10
Kushner 1990   38  0.4630  0.0011  0.0916  0.3736  0.0818  0.17
Lilamand 2001   55  0.3933  0.0057  0.0461  0.0453  0.0458  0.04
Luisada 1990   49  0.4353  0.0045  0.0649  0.0660  0.0548  0.05
Luisada 2008   20  0.5028  0.0017  0.0917  0.3632  0.247  0.29
Lushtak 2004   39  0.4545  0.0035  0.0648  0.0662  0.0449  0.05
Malcuzynski 1951   12  0.5217  0.0119  0.0811  0.4336  0.0813  0.19
Malcuzynski 1961   14  0.5137  0.0022  0.1114  0.3837  0.0817  0.17
Magaloff 1977   26  0.499  0.0120  0.0719  0.3417  0.416  0.37
Magin 1975   21  0.5058  0.0021  0.0718  0.3444  0.0822  0.16
Meguri 1997   51  0.4235  0.0056  0.0737  0.0752  0.0538  0.06
Milkina 1970   1  0.592  0.212  0.383  0.7024  0.305  0.46
Mohovich 1999   11  0.5231  0.008  0.128  0.5133  0.0810  0.20
Nezu 2005   6  0.5527  0.0013  0.0910  0.4645  0.0812  0.19
Ohlsson 1999   2  0.578  0.023  0.282  0.7116  0.482  0.58
Olejniczak 1990   32  0.4740  0.0044  0.0551  0.0557  0.0553  0.05
Osinska 1989   41  0.4523  0.0051  0.0554  0.0564  0.0355  0.04
Perlemuter 1992   42  0.4413  0.0148  0.0645  0.0614  0.4220  0.16
Poblocka 1999   10  0.5318  0.0015  0.0812  0.4136  0.109  0.20
Rangell 2001   53  0.4163  0.0055  0.0644  0.0652  0.0552  0.05
Richter 1960   58  0.3539  0.0060  0.0363  0.0351  0.0559  0.04
Richter 1961   60  0.3156  0.0061  0.0460  0.0452  0.0556  0.04
Rosen 1989   16  0.5124  0.0028  0.0727  0.1944  0.0630  0.11
Rubinstein 1939   36  0.4646  0.0032  0.0631  0.1152  0.0535  0.07
Rubinstein 1952   4  0.573  0.034  0.434  0.6819  0.443  0.55
Rubinstein 1966   13  0.5144  0.0012  0.0815  0.3756  0.0525  0.14
Rudanovskaya 2007   15  0.5119  0.0029  0.0730  0.1222  0.2815  0.18
Shebanova 2002   44  0.4325  0.0033  0.0739  0.0747  0.0540  0.06
Smith 1975   7  0.5514  0.015  0.245  0.6426  0.334  0.46
Sztompka 1959   37  0.4622  0.0037  0.0743  0.0732  0.2626  0.13
Tanyel 1992   56  0.3926  0.0052  0.0740  0.0763  0.0350  0.05
Tsujii 2005   5  0.5547  0.007  0.137  0.5345  0.0711  0.19
Uninsky 1959   9  0.5342  0.009  0.139  0.5049  0.0616  0.17
Vardi 1988   43  0.4411  0.0130  0.0629  0.1452  0.0533  0.08
Wasowski 1980   54  0.4155  0.0050  0.0555  0.0557  0.0544  0.05
Zimerman 1975   50  0.4264  0.0049  0.0552  0.0561  0.0461  0.04
Random 1   65  -0.0166  0.0065  0.0265  0.0237  0.0565  0.03
Random 2   66  -0.0265  0.0066  0.0166  0.0163  0.0366  0.02
Random 3   64  -0.0161  0.0064  0.0264  0.0222  0.1941  0.06

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).