Cohen 1997

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   3  0.711  0.161  0.162  0.5951  0.053  0.17
Ashkenazy 1981   9  0.647  0.059  0.096  0.5449  0.057  0.16
Beliavsky 2004   56  0.4713  0.0227  0.0824  0.1741  0.0526  0.09
BenOr 1989   30  0.5547  0.0041  0.0542  0.0564  0.0366  0.04
Biret 1990   16  0.6250  0.0031  0.0531  0.1042  0.0630  0.08
Blet 2003   4  0.682  0.114  0.161  0.5957  0.0410  0.15
Block 1995   35  0.5429  0.0060  0.0455  0.0457  0.0565  0.04
Brailowsky 1960   27  0.5654  0.0040  0.0636  0.0647  0.0634  0.06
Chiu 1999   48  0.5127  0.0156  0.0458  0.0461  0.0458  0.04
Clidat 1994   41  0.5259  0.0046  0.0545  0.0547  0.0550  0.05
Cohen 1997   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Coop 1987   42  0.5251  0.0055  0.0540  0.0564  0.0363  0.04
Cortot 1951   18  0.6122  0.0124  0.0621  0.2449  0.0520  0.11
Czerny 1949   60  0.3955  0.0047  0.0637  0.0644  0.0636  0.06
Czerny 1949b   59  0.4442  0.0042  0.0550  0.0545  0.0645  0.05
Ezaki 2006   33  0.5438  0.0044  0.0456  0.0462  0.0456  0.04
Falvay 1989   40  0.5243  0.0057  0.0462  0.0461  0.0460  0.04
Ferenczy 1958   10  0.6366  0.0028  0.0532  0.0961  0.0435  0.06
Fiorentino 1962   44  0.5257  0.0051  0.0638  0.0649  0.0640  0.06
Fliere 1977   26  0.5763  0.0038  0.0547  0.0548  0.0641  0.05
Fou 1978   24  0.5758  0.0030  0.0530  0.1162  0.0431  0.07
Francois 1956   57  0.4725  0.0125  0.0822  0.1942  0.0621  0.11
Hatto 1997   2  0.7124  0.013  0.175  0.5452  0.056  0.16
Horowitz 1971   6  0.674  0.085  0.154  0.5461  0.0411  0.15
Horowitz 1985   46  0.5120  0.0123  0.0625  0.1556  0.0524  0.09
Indjic 2001   1  0.716  0.052  0.163  0.5552  0.054  0.17
Kapell 1951   37  0.5346  0.0054  0.0546  0.0549  0.0647  0.05
Kiepura 1999   23  0.573  0.087  0.0823  0.1763  0.0427  0.08
Kilenyi 1937   50  0.4936  0.0049  0.0543  0.0553  0.0648  0.05
Kissin 1993   14  0.6239  0.0017  0.1120  0.2463  0.0422  0.10
Kitain 1937   64  0.1933  0.0048  0.0544  0.0536  0.0654  0.05
Kushner 1990   21  0.5816  0.0120  0.1017  0.3140  0.0612  0.14
Levy 1951   53  0.4914  0.0261  0.0459  0.0441  0.0559  0.04
Luisada 1990   34  0.5464  0.0035  0.0454  0.0444  0.0651  0.05
Lushtak 2004   13  0.6237  0.0018  0.0916  0.3464  0.0323  0.10
Lympany 1968   12  0.6330  0.0019  0.1212  0.4162  0.0318  0.11
Magaloff 1977   20  0.5944  0.0032  0.0629  0.1147  0.0628  0.08
Magaloff 1977b   19  0.5921  0.0129  0.0526  0.1364  0.0338  0.06
Magin 1975   39  0.5311  0.0358  0.0463  0.0460  0.0562  0.04
Milkina 1970   8  0.6517  0.0112  0.1011  0.4664  0.0315  0.12
Mohovich 1999   55  0.4826  0.0122  0.0628  0.1148  0.0629  0.08
Nadelmann 1956   32  0.5552  0.0026  0.0627  0.1359  0.0432  0.07
Ohlsson 1999   22  0.5715  0.0143  0.0551  0.0559  0.0464  0.04
Olejniczac 1990   47  0.5161  0.0050  0.0452  0.0448  0.0649  0.05
Olejniczak 1991   29  0.5641  0.0052  0.0735  0.0761  0.0444  0.05
Osinska 1989   15  0.628  0.0415  0.1010  0.4944  0.062  0.17
Paderewski 1912   51  0.4934  0.0033  0.0734  0.0745  0.0637  0.06
Perahia 1994   58  0.475  0.066  0.0919  0.2652  0.0519  0.11
Perlemuter 1986   52  0.499  0.0414  0.0913  0.3940  0.069  0.15
Poblocka 1999   36  0.5365  0.0053  0.0461  0.0460  0.0457  0.04
Rangell 2001   49  0.5145  0.0059  0.0464  0.0447  0.0655  0.05
Risler 1920   61  0.3832  0.0063  0.0548  0.0557  0.0543  0.05
Rosen 1989   25  0.5753  0.0039  0.0639  0.0663  0.0453  0.05
Rubinstein 1939   28  0.5623  0.0121  0.1118  0.2839  0.0614  0.13
Rubinstein 1952   17  0.6112  0.0213  0.099  0.5038  0.058  0.16
Rubinstein 1966   5  0.6731  0.0011  0.0814  0.3753  0.0416  0.12
Rummel 1943   62  0.3548  0.0045  0.0457  0.0436  0.0652  0.05
Shebanova 2002   7  0.6519  0.018  0.0815  0.3556  0.0417  0.12
Smith 1975   38  0.5356  0.0036  0.0453  0.0439  0.0561  0.04
Szpilman 1948   45  0.5228  0.0137  0.0549  0.0541  0.0642  0.05
Uninsky 1971   31  0.5510  0.0310  0.108  0.5254  0.055  0.16
Wasowski 1980   43  0.5235  0.0034  0.0833  0.0859  0.0433  0.06
Weissenberg 1971   54  0.4940  0.0062  0.0541  0.0552  0.0546  0.05
Average   11  0.6318  0.0116  0.127  0.5346  0.061  0.18
Random 1    66  -0.0260  0.0065  0.0265  0.026  0.3925  0.09
Random 2   63  0.2462  0.0064  0.0460  0.041  0.4913  0.14
Random 3   65  0.0449  0.0066  0.0166  0.016  0.3739  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).