Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   63  0.2022  0.0050  0.0358  0.0362  0.0464  0.03
Ax 1995   59  0.3340  0.0049  0.0456  0.0458  0.0652  0.05
Bacha 1998   12  0.4611  0.025  0.109  0.4843  0.073  0.18
Barbosa 1983   62  0.2841  0.0053  0.0641  0.0655  0.0547  0.05
BenOr 1989   13  0.456  0.0510  0.127  0.5061  0.0412  0.14
Biret 1990   25  0.4361  0.0019  0.1022  0.2558  0.0426  0.10
Brailowsky 1960   55  0.3660  0.0057  0.0551  0.0554  0.0641  0.05
Chiu 1999   43  0.4033  0.0054  0.0549  0.0563  0.0454  0.04
Clidat 1994   51  0.3826  0.0051  0.0457  0.0450  0.0649  0.05
Cohen 1997   60  0.3332  0.0060  0.0360  0.0336  0.0750  0.05
Cortot 1951   50  0.3844  0.0056  0.0454  0.0458  0.0460  0.04
Csalog 1996   19  0.4464  0.0021  0.0819  0.2938  0.0616  0.13
Czerny 1989   49  0.3852  0.0025  0.0725  0.2153  0.0620  0.11
Ezaki 2006   47  0.3828  0.0046  0.0640  0.0663  0.0438  0.05
Falvay 1989   6  0.4921  0.007  0.142  0.5349  0.062  0.18
Fiorentino 1962   28  0.4323  0.0045  0.0545  0.0562  0.0459  0.04
Fliere 1977   31  0.4235  0.0027  0.0727  0.1747  0.0625  0.10
Fou 1978   39  0.4062  0.0029  0.0629  0.1360  0.0430  0.07
Francois 1956   21  0.4412  0.026  0.1014  0.4245  0.0610  0.16
Goldenweiser 1946   54  0.3651  0.0063  0.0543  0.0542  0.0640  0.05
Gornostaeva 1994   61  0.2946  0.0059  0.0362  0.0359  0.0465  0.03
Groot 1988   8  0.4831  0.0013  0.114  0.5351  0.066  0.18
Hatto 1993   27  0.4347  0.0047  0.0735  0.0757  0.0537  0.06
Hatto 1997   24  0.4337  0.0040  0.0550  0.0551  0.0648  0.05
Horszowski 1983   38  0.4125  0.0036  0.0544  0.0541  0.0639  0.05
Indjic 2001   17  0.4549  0.0041  0.0734  0.0752  0.0636  0.06
Katin 1996   7  0.4813  0.019  0.1515  0.4260  0.0415  0.13
Kiepura 1999   40  0.4034  0.0039  0.0637  0.0650  0.0635  0.06
Korecka 1992   32  0.4256  0.0042  0.0548  0.0555  0.0545  0.05
Kushner 1990   33  0.4257  0.0032  0.0532  0.1058  0.0533  0.07
Lilamand 2001   56  0.3538  0.0055  0.0359  0.0359  0.0463  0.03
Luisada 1990   53  0.3730  0.0052  0.0455  0.0453  0.0557  0.04
Luisada 2008   36  0.4136  0.0034  0.0833  0.0848  0.0634  0.07
Lushtak 2004   5  0.493  0.133  0.223  0.5363  0.0411  0.15
Malcuzynski 1951   44  0.3958  0.0038  0.0552  0.0563  0.0461  0.04
Malcuzynski 1961   30  0.4220  0.0031  0.0530  0.1162  0.0432  0.07
Magaloff 1977   57  0.3566  0.0062  0.0453  0.0446  0.0556  0.04
Magin 1975   29  0.4255  0.0037  0.0547  0.0552  0.0644  0.05
Meguri 1997   37  0.4117  0.0128  0.0728  0.1563  0.0429  0.08
Milkina 1970   11  0.4724  0.0022  0.0920  0.2658  0.0521  0.11
Mohovich 1999   1  0.522  0.192  0.281  0.6754  0.055  0.18
Nezu 2005   4  0.4929  0.008  0.1310  0.4854  0.074  0.18
Ohlsson 1999   41  0.4039  0.0048  0.0639  0.0663  0.0355  0.04
Olejniczak 1990   10  0.478  0.0323  0.0826  0.1962  0.0428  0.09
Osinska 1989   3  0.4916  0.0116  0.1411  0.4362  0.0413  0.13
Perlemuter 1992   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Poblocka 1999   34  0.4245  0.0043  0.0546  0.0555  0.0642  0.05
Rangell 2001   26  0.4327  0.0017  0.1016  0.3647  0.0518  0.13
Richter 1960   23  0.445  0.0520  0.0823  0.2340  0.0619  0.12
Richter 1961   52  0.3714  0.0158  0.0361  0.0361  0.0462  0.03
Rosen 1989   2  0.507  0.0411  0.098  0.4952  0.069  0.17
Rubinstein 1939   46  0.3843  0.0035  0.0542  0.0555  0.0543  0.05
Rubinstein 1952   15  0.454  0.054  0.216  0.5045  0.071  0.19
Rubinstein 1966   16  0.451  0.241  0.245  0.5043  0.068  0.17
Rudanovskaya 2007   18  0.4542  0.0026  0.0724  0.2350  0.0522  0.11
Shebanova 2002   14  0.459  0.0312  0.0912  0.4357  0.0417  0.13
Smith 1975   20  0.4410  0.0214  0.1013  0.4352  0.077  0.17
Sztompka 1959   45  0.3950  0.0044  0.0638  0.0659  0.0546  0.05
Tanyel 1992   35  0.4119  0.0124  0.0621  0.2552  0.0523  0.11
Tsujii 2005   9  0.4718  0.0118  0.0918  0.3360  0.0424  0.11
Uninsky 1959   22  0.4453  0.0030  0.0631  0.1162  0.0431  0.07
Vardi 1988   48  0.3815  0.0115  0.1117  0.3550  0.0514  0.13
Wasowski 1980   58  0.3463  0.0061  0.0363  0.0355  0.0653  0.04
Zimerman 1975   42  0.4054  0.0033  0.0636  0.0660  0.0451  0.05
Random 1   65  0.0148  0.0065  0.0265  0.0232  0.0958  0.04
Random 2   64  0.0165  0.0064  0.0364  0.0322  0.3027  0.09
Random 3   66  -0.0359  0.0066  0.0166  0.0160  0.0366  0.02

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).