Luisada 1991

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   20  0.714  0.0712  0.1614  0.4719  0.352  0.41
Bacha 1997   8  0.766  0.024  0.137  0.5526  0.223  0.35
Barbosa 1983   33  0.6548  0.0031  0.0927  0.0936  0.0731  0.08
Biret 1990   4  0.7622  0.007  0.145  0.5822  0.451  0.51
Block 1995   48  0.5334  0.0045  0.0739  0.0745  0.0540  0.06
Brailowsky 1960   18  0.7225  0.0022  0.1122  0.3031  0.0916  0.16
Chiu 1999   26  0.6811  0.0229  0.0928  0.0940  0.0634  0.07
Clidat 1994   25  0.6833  0.0025  0.1425  0.2850  0.0525  0.12
Cohen 1997   31  0.6735  0.0035  0.0646  0.0645  0.0642  0.06
Cortot 1951   30  0.6729  0.0027  0.0930  0.0932  0.0927  0.09
Csalog 1996   15  0.737  0.028  0.154  0.6227  0.134  0.28
Czerny 1990   10  0.7410  0.026  0.1211  0.5032  0.108  0.22
Ezaki 2006   19  0.7214  0.0116  0.1317  0.3848  0.0521  0.14
Ferenczy 1958   16  0.7217  0.0118  0.1015  0.4141  0.0615  0.16
Fliere 1977   39  0.6436  0.0041  0.0929  0.0940  0.0728  0.08
Fou 1978   35  0.6524  0.0037  0.0833  0.0848  0.0441  0.06
Francois 1956   49  0.5340  0.0050  0.0741  0.0743  0.0736  0.07
Grinberg 1951   34  0.6516  0.0117  0.1019  0.3444  0.0718  0.15
Hatto 1993   7  0.7637  0.0010  0.1313  0.4837  0.0813  0.20
Hatto 1997   3  0.7638  0.005  0.1210  0.5038  0.107  0.22
Indjic 2001   2  0.782  0.172  0.249  0.5343  0.0810  0.21
Jonas 1947   27  0.6850  0.0033  0.0932  0.0946  0.0635  0.07
Kapell 1951   17  0.7232  0.0019  0.0818  0.3743  0.0619  0.15
Kiepura 1999   50  0.5142  0.0049  0.0740  0.0736  0.0732  0.07
Kushner 1989   12  0.738  0.0211  0.156  0.5844  0.0712  0.20
Luisada 1991   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Lushtak 2004   32  0.6627  0.0036  0.0737  0.0747  0.0539  0.06
Magaloff 1978   42  0.6028  0.0039  0.0834  0.0849  0.0538  0.06
Meguri 1997   5  0.763  0.153  0.203  0.6334  0.096  0.24
Milkina 1970   24  0.699  0.0226  0.0926  0.1849  0.0430  0.08
Mohovich 1999   11  0.7423  0.0015  0.2116  0.4048  0.0523  0.14
Niedzielski 1931   14  0.7330  0.0020  0.0923  0.2842  0.0722  0.14
Ohlsson 1999   9  0.755  0.059  0.152  0.6436  0.0711  0.21
Olejniczak 1990   13  0.7315  0.0114  0.1612  0.4828  0.109  0.22
Osinska 1989   43  0.6012  0.0144  0.0742  0.0736  0.0733  0.07
Rangell 2001   36  0.6539  0.0038  0.0738  0.0747  0.0544  0.06
Richter 1976   40  0.6341  0.0040  0.0743  0.0749  0.0643  0.06
Rubinstein 1938   45  0.5846  0.0043  0.0647  0.0649  0.0550  0.05
Rubinstein 1952   41  0.6144  0.0042  0.0645  0.0632  0.0745  0.06
Rubinstein 1961   44  0.5813  0.0146  0.0549  0.0536  0.0651  0.05
Rubinstein 1966   46  0.5721  0.0047  0.0550  0.0537  0.0652  0.05
Shebanova 2002   28  0.6831  0.0030  0.0836  0.0830  0.0829  0.08
Smidowicz 1948   22  0.7053  0.0023  0.1021  0.3343  0.0720  0.15
Smidowicz 1948b   21  0.7145  0.0024  0.1224  0.2849  0.0624  0.13
Smith 1975   47  0.5547  0.0048  0.0648  0.0649  0.0447  0.05
Sofronitsky 1949   23  0.7019  0.0121  0.1020  0.3343  0.0817  0.16
Sztompka 1959   37  0.6420  0.0134  0.0644  0.0640  0.0549  0.05
Tomsic 1995   38  0.6443  0.0028  0.0931  0.0933  0.0926  0.09
Uninsky 1971   6  0.7618  0.0113  0.168  0.5443  0.0614  0.18
Wasowski 1980   29  0.6726  0.0032  0.0835  0.0847  0.0537  0.06
Average Tempo   1  0.781  0.321  0.311  0.8137  0.095  0.27
Random 1   52  0.0051  0.0051  0.0351  0.0328  0.0653  0.04
Random 2   53  0.0052  0.0053  0.0253  0.0225  0.1346  0.05
Random 3   51  0.0349  0.0052  0.0252  0.0224  0.1448  0.05

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).