Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   6  -0.0531  0.0012  0.0913  0.2365  0.0213  0.07
Ashkenazy 1981   17  -0.1212  0.0111  0.0914  0.2365  0.0215  0.07
Beliavsky 2004   28  -0.1411  0.0114  0.0911  0.3065  0.0210  0.08
BenOr 1989   45  -0.1740  0.0055  0.0355  0.0365  0.0264  0.02
Biret 1990   7  -0.0817  0.0038  0.0442  0.0465  0.0247  0.03
Blet 2003   39  -0.1620  0.0048  0.0353  0.0365  0.0255  0.02
Block 1995   43  -0.169  0.0139  0.0435  0.0465  0.0245  0.03
Brailowsky 1960   58  -0.1916  0.0160  0.0259  0.0265  0.0251  0.02
Chiu 1999   19  -0.1237  0.0013  0.098  0.3365  0.028  0.08
Clidat 1994   59  -0.1955  0.0061  0.0262  0.0265  0.0259  0.02
Cohen 1997   2  0.045  0.013  0.206  0.3765  0.026  0.09
Coop 1987   49  -0.1858  0.0049  0.0349  0.0365  0.0253  0.02
Cortot 1951   50  -0.1841  0.0045  0.0447  0.0465  0.0248  0.03
Czerny 1949   46  -0.1730  0.0034  0.0448  0.0465  0.0244  0.03
Czerny 1949b   56  -0.1942  0.0053  0.0445  0.0465  0.0239  0.03
Ezaki 2006   37  -0.1665  0.0020  0.0512  0.2465  0.0212  0.07
Falvay 1989   48  -0.176  0.0132  0.0531  0.0965  0.0229  0.04
Ferenczy 1958   16  -0.1233  0.0058  0.0356  0.0365  0.0257  0.02
Fiorentino 1962   40  -0.1657  0.0051  0.0441  0.0465  0.0246  0.03
Fliere 1977   52  -0.1843  0.0044  0.0443  0.0465  0.0233  0.03
Fou 1978   53  -0.1949  0.0024  0.0620  0.2065  0.0219  0.06
Francois 1956   65  -0.2252  0.0062  0.0260  0.0265  0.0265  0.02
Hatto 1997   4  -0.0415  0.016  0.105  0.4264  0.024  0.09
Horowitz 1971   23  -0.1346  0.0056  0.0258  0.0265  0.0263  0.02
Horowitz 1985   24  -0.1439  0.0047  0.0446  0.0465  0.0234  0.03
Indjic 2001   5  -0.0427  0.007  0.144  0.4364  0.025  0.09
Kapell 1951   35  -0.1521  0.0031  0.0432  0.0965  0.0230  0.04
Kiepura 1999   11  -0.114  0.025  0.167  0.3665  0.027  0.08
Kilenyi 1937   41  -0.1622  0.008  0.089  0.3365  0.0211  0.08
Kissin 1993   26  -0.1451  0.0025  0.0617  0.2065  0.0220  0.06
Kitain 1937   55  -0.1918  0.0065  0.0265  0.0265  0.0262  0.02
Kushner 1990   20  -0.1325  0.0046  0.0444  0.0465  0.0241  0.03
Levy 1951   18  -0.123  0.0415  0.0819  0.2064  0.0218  0.06
Luisada 1990   38  -0.1638  0.0030  0.0430  0.1065  0.0231  0.04
Lushtak 2004   60  -0.2059  0.0063  0.0263  0.0265  0.0260  0.02
Lympany 1968   63  -0.2250  0.0064  0.0264  0.0265  0.0249  0.02
Magaloff 1977   36  -0.1529  0.0029  0.0724  0.1665  0.0222  0.06
Magaloff 1977b   33  -0.1514  0.0128  0.0622  0.1765  0.0224  0.06
Magin 1975   51  -0.1860  0.0050  0.0352  0.0365  0.0252  0.02
Milkina 1970   13  -0.1156  0.0010  0.0910  0.3265  0.029  0.08
Mohovich 1999   57  -0.1964  0.0054  0.0354  0.0365  0.0261  0.02
Nadelmann 1956   21  -0.1319  0.0042  0.0633  0.0665  0.0243  0.03
Ohlsson 1999   31  -0.1513  0.0137  0.0440  0.0465  0.0240  0.03
Olejniczac 1990   42  -0.1662  0.0052  0.0351  0.0365  0.0258  0.02
Olejniczak 1991   27  -0.1410  0.0141  0.0436  0.0465  0.0237  0.03
Osinska 1989   47  -0.1761  0.0057  0.0357  0.0365  0.0250  0.02
Paderewski 1912   12  -0.118  0.0118  0.0621  0.1864  0.0223  0.06
Perahia 1994   22  -0.1335  0.0021  0.0529  0.1065  0.0232  0.04
Perlemuter 1986   44  -0.1745  0.0040  0.0534  0.0565  0.0242  0.03
Poblocka 1999   54  -0.1963  0.0033  0.0437  0.0465  0.0235  0.03
Rangell 2001   30  -0.1424  0.0016  0.0716  0.2265  0.0216  0.07
Risler 1920   8  -0.097  0.014  0.142  0.5465  0.023  0.10
Rosen 1989   32  -0.1532  0.009  0.0715  0.2265  0.0214  0.07
Rubinstein 1939   10  -0.1154  0.0043  0.0439  0.0465  0.0238  0.03
Rubinstein 1952   14  -0.1147  0.0019  0.0625  0.1664  0.0225  0.06
Rubinstein 1966   9  -0.1053  0.0036  0.0350  0.0365  0.0256  0.02
Rummel 1943   64  -0.2226  0.0017  0.0727  0.1465  0.0228  0.05
Shebanova 2002   29  -0.1444  0.0022  0.0518  0.2065  0.0221  0.06
Smith 1975   34  -0.1536  0.0035  0.0438  0.0465  0.0236  0.03
Szpilman 1948   15  -0.1123  0.0026  0.0723  0.1665  0.0217  0.06
Uninsky 1971   62  -0.2148  0.0059  0.0261  0.0265  0.0254  0.02
Wasowski 1980   61  -0.2134  0.0023  0.0528  0.1165  0.0226  0.05
Weissenberg 1971   25  -0.1428  0.0027  0.0526  0.1565  0.0227  0.05
Random 1    3  -0.012  0.102  0.263  0.518  0.371  0.43
Random 2   1  0.121  0.641  0.631  0.7332  0.092  0.26
Random 3   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target

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).