Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   5  -0.0320  0.0110  0.125  0.4264  0.027  0.09
Ashkenazy 1981   39  -0.1027  0.0035  0.0635  0.0664  0.0242  0.03
Beliavsky 2004   44  -0.1043  0.0032  0.0531  0.1064  0.0231  0.04
BenOr 1989   31  -0.0913  0.0234  0.0536  0.0564  0.0244  0.03
Biret 1990   22  -0.0815  0.0114  0.107  0.3864  0.029  0.09
Blet 2003   56  -0.1354  0.0054  0.0347  0.0364  0.0254  0.02
Block 1995   11  -0.055  0.044  0.144  0.4764  0.026  0.10
Brailowsky 1960   23  -0.088  0.0219  0.0817  0.2664  0.0215  0.07
Chiu 1999   20  -0.0750  0.0017  0.0723  0.1664  0.0223  0.06
Clidat 1994   48  -0.1123  0.0126  0.0522  0.1664  0.0321  0.07
Cohen 1997   3  -0.0211  0.029  0.126  0.3964  0.028  0.09
Coop 1987   28  -0.0917  0.0140  0.0438  0.0464  0.0237  0.03
Cortot 1951   4  -0.021  0.291  0.281  0.6064  0.024  0.11
Czerny 1949   59  -0.1460  0.0055  0.0350  0.0364  0.0257  0.02
Czerny 1949b   47  -0.1148  0.0031  0.0530  0.1164  0.0229  0.05
Ezaki 2006   51  -0.1162  0.0061  0.0255  0.0264  0.0246  0.02
Falvay 1989   14  -0.0653  0.0028  0.0525  0.1364  0.0227  0.05
Ferenczy 1958   8  -0.0412  0.0215  0.0721  0.2364  0.0313  0.08
Fiorentino 1962   40  -0.1036  0.0047  0.0440  0.0464  0.0243  0.03
Fliere 1977   36  -0.1034  0.0044  0.0443  0.0464  0.0233  0.03
Fou 1978   33  -0.0945  0.0059  0.0258  0.0264  0.0252  0.02
Francois 1956   18  -0.0739  0.0021  0.0913  0.2964  0.0310  0.09
Hatto 1997   13  -0.0646  0.0063  0.0259  0.0265  0.0255  0.02
Horowitz 1971   29  -0.0938  0.0024  0.0532  0.1064  0.0232  0.04
Horowitz 1985   53  -0.1237  0.0023  0.0628  0.1164  0.0225  0.05
Indjic 2001   12  -0.0557  0.0064  0.0256  0.0265  0.0263  0.02
Kapell 1951   32  -0.0933  0.0041  0.0444  0.0464  0.0235  0.03
Kiepura 1999   26  -0.083  0.117  0.159  0.3664  0.0211  0.08
Kilenyi 1937   37  -0.1021  0.0148  0.0351  0.0364  0.0256  0.02
Kissin 1993   24  -0.0859  0.0039  0.0439  0.0464  0.0240  0.03
Kitain 1937   65  -0.177  0.0313  0.1114  0.2764  0.0222  0.07
Kushner 1990   41  -0.1035  0.0037  0.0633  0.0664  0.0238  0.03
Levy 1951   61  -0.1531  0.0025  0.0527  0.1165  0.0226  0.05
Luisada 1990   46  -0.1142  0.0049  0.0352  0.0364  0.0260  0.02
Lushtak 2004   21  -0.0761  0.0029  0.0529  0.1164  0.0324  0.06
Lympany 1968   58  -0.1464  0.0065  0.0265  0.0264  0.0247  0.02
Magaloff 1977   7  -0.0314  0.023  0.142  0.5764  0.032  0.13
Magaloff 1977b   6  -0.036  0.032  0.143  0.5764  0.033  0.13
Magin 1975   16  -0.0630  0.0030  0.0526  0.1264  0.0228  0.05
Milkina 1970   25  -0.0855  0.0036  0.0634  0.0664  0.0236  0.03
Mohovich 1999   62  -0.1522  0.0156  0.0260  0.0264  0.0264  0.02
Nadelmann 1956   30  -0.0952  0.0042  0.0346  0.0364  0.0253  0.02
Ohlsson 1999   17  -0.0719  0.018  0.1119  0.2464  0.0218  0.07
Olejniczac 1990   45  -0.1124  0.0050  0.0353  0.0364  0.0258  0.02
Olejniczak 1991   27  -0.0941  0.0057  0.0262  0.0264  0.0251  0.02
Osinska 1989   34  -0.0965  0.0045  0.0445  0.0464  0.0234  0.03
Paderewski 1912   64  -0.1628  0.0053  0.0349  0.0365  0.0259  0.02
Perahia 1994   50  -0.1129  0.0043  0.0442  0.0464  0.0241  0.03
Perlemuter 1986   52  -0.1249  0.0033  0.0537  0.0564  0.0239  0.03
Poblocka 1999   54  -0.1247  0.0060  0.0264  0.0264  0.0249  0.02
Rangell 2001   19  -0.0718  0.0138  0.0441  0.0464  0.0245  0.03
Risler 1920   43  -0.109  0.0220  0.0915  0.2764  0.0216  0.07
Rosen 1989   42  -0.1032  0.0051  0.0254  0.0264  0.0262  0.02
Rubinstein 1939   38  -0.1010  0.0218  0.0716  0.2664  0.0217  0.07
Rubinstein 1952   55  -0.1325  0.0058  0.0261  0.0265  0.0265  0.02
Rubinstein 1966   15  -0.0658  0.0022  0.0720  0.2364  0.0219  0.07
Rummel 1943   63  -0.1640  0.0062  0.0263  0.0264  0.0261  0.02
Shebanova 2002   10  -0.0563  0.0016  0.0718  0.2564  0.0220  0.07
Smith 1975   57  -0.1344  0.0052  0.0257  0.0264  0.0250  0.02
Szpilman 1948   60  -0.1456  0.0046  0.0348  0.0364  0.0248  0.02
Uninsky 1971   9  -0.0426  0.0012  0.1311  0.3464  0.035  0.10
Wasowski 1980   49  -0.1116  0.0111  0.1112  0.3464  0.0212  0.08
Weissenberg 1971   35  -0.0951  0.0027  0.0524  0.1464  0.0230  0.05
Random 1    target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Random 2   1  0.014  0.106  0.1410  0.3565  0.0214  0.08
Random 3   2  -0.012  0.135  0.138  0.373  0.511  0.43

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).