Ohlsson 1999

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   49  0.3422  0.0029  0.0928  0.1618  0.3326  0.23
Ashkenazy 1981   7  0.5119  0.007  0.267  0.625  0.705  0.66
Beliavsky 2004   58  0.2750  0.0052  0.0641  0.0629  0.1738  0.10
BenOr 1989   18  0.4341  0.0022  0.0827  0.1939  0.0932  0.13
Biret 1990   21  0.4235  0.0017  0.0715  0.3518  0.3119  0.33
Blet 2003   10  0.466  0.0112  0.1118  0.3026  0.3220  0.31
Block 1995   38  0.3833  0.0040  0.0553  0.0549  0.0659  0.05
Brailowsky 1960   36  0.3844  0.0042  0.0551  0.0534  0.1044  0.07
Chiu 1999   19  0.4310  0.0115  0.1014  0.389  0.5210  0.44
Clidat 1994   35  0.3832  0.0034  0.0546  0.0530  0.1442  0.08
Cohen 1997   25  0.4020  0.0027  0.0823  0.257  0.6513  0.40
Coop 1987   23  0.4145  0.0030  0.0730  0.1436  0.0936  0.11
Cortot 1951   63  0.1866  0.0063  0.0548  0.0554  0.0561  0.05
Czerny 1949   60  0.2461  0.0060  0.0457  0.0459  0.0565  0.04
Czerny 1949b   59  0.2662  0.0059  0.0454  0.0460  0.0464  0.04
Ezaki 2006   52  0.3160  0.0056  0.0463  0.0449  0.0752  0.05
Falvay 1989   28  0.4027  0.0028  0.0926  0.2045  0.0537  0.10
Ferenczy 1958   20  0.4236  0.0020  0.0721  0.2627  0.3621  0.31
Fiorentino 1962   34  0.3942  0.0044  0.0545  0.0548  0.0851  0.06
Fliere 1977   32  0.397  0.0126  0.0722  0.2613  0.4717  0.35
Fou 1978   44  0.3623  0.0048  0.0461  0.0434  0.1050  0.06
Francois 1956   41  0.3629  0.0045  0.0637  0.0615  0.4431  0.16
Hatto 1997   14  0.4456  0.0018  0.1017  0.3116  0.4914  0.39
Horowitz 1971   30  0.3916  0.0024  0.0824  0.2426  0.2624  0.25
Horowitz 1985   62  0.2126  0.0062  0.0549  0.0553  0.0655  0.05
Indjic 2001   12  0.4553  0.0016  0.0816  0.3316  0.5511  0.43
Kapell 1951   47  0.3459  0.0049  0.0460  0.0448  0.0657  0.05
Kiepura 1999   51  0.3158  0.0055  0.0640  0.0652  0.0553  0.05
Kilenyi 1937   27  0.4030  0.0033  0.0639  0.0631  0.1639  0.10
Kissin 1993   16  0.4446  0.0021  0.0720  0.2919  0.4816  0.37
Kitain 1937   61  0.2357  0.0051  0.0458  0.0430  0.1448  0.07
Kushner 1990   5  0.534  0.035  0.265  0.709  0.662  0.68
Levy 1951   55  0.3048  0.0058  0.0547  0.0551  0.0556  0.05
Luisada 1990   37  0.382  0.0531  0.0532  0.1046  0.0643  0.08
Lushtak 2004   45  0.3547  0.0037  0.0543  0.0534  0.0946  0.07
Lympany 1968   46  0.3554  0.0041  0.0456  0.0431  0.1841  0.08
Magaloff 1977   24  0.4139  0.0038  0.0542  0.055  0.5028  0.16
Magaloff 1977b   39  0.3743  0.0046  0.0833  0.0815  0.3330  0.16
Magin 1975   9  0.4813  0.0111  0.0910  0.4628  0.3115  0.38
Milkina 1970   6  0.5131  0.004  0.256  0.6915  0.536  0.60
Mohovich 1999   13  0.459  0.0110  0.1111  0.4310  0.598  0.50
Nadelmann 1956   4  0.5411  0.013  0.273  0.715  0.624  0.66
Ohlsson 1999   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Olejniczac 1990   22  0.418  0.0125  0.0729  0.1530  0.1829  0.16
Olejniczak 1991   26  0.4024  0.0036  0.0636  0.0627  0.1935  0.11
Osinska 1989   8  0.4815  0.009  0.118  0.5233  0.1025  0.23
Paderewski 1912   33  0.3934  0.0023  0.0825  0.2311  0.3922  0.30
Perahia 1994   29  0.395  0.0214  0.0819  0.3026  0.2623  0.28
Perlemuter 1986   15  0.4451  0.0019  0.1013  0.4022  0.2818  0.33
Poblocka 1999   53  0.3040  0.0053  0.0455  0.0447  0.0562  0.04
Rangell 2001   43  0.3655  0.0047  0.0734  0.0727  0.2333  0.13
Risler 1920   57  0.2937  0.0061  0.0550  0.0555  0.0463  0.04
Rosen 1989   54  0.3018  0.0057  0.0459  0.0436  0.1347  0.07
Rubinstein 1939   17  0.4328  0.0013  0.1012  0.4316  0.3812  0.40
Rubinstein 1952   3  0.5412  0.016  0.324  0.716  0.653  0.68
Rubinstein 1966   2  0.583  0.032  0.332  0.789  0.631  0.70
Rummel 1943   40  0.3717  0.0039  0.0544  0.0516  0.2934  0.12
Shebanova 2002   11  0.4638  0.008  0.119  0.5120  0.459  0.48
Smith 1975   42  0.3614  0.0035  0.0635  0.0626  0.1540  0.09
Szpilman 1948   31  0.3921  0.0032  0.0531  0.1022  0.4227  0.20
Uninsky 1971   56  0.2963  0.0050  0.0462  0.0434  0.0758  0.05
Wasowski 1980   50  0.3464  0.0054  0.0638  0.0648  0.0554  0.05
Weissenberg 1971   48  0.3425  0.0043  0.0552  0.0539  0.0749  0.06
Average   1  0.641  0.711  0.701  0.8522  0.297  0.50
Random 1    66  -0.0549  0.0066  0.0166  0.0154  0.0366  0.02
Random 2   64  0.0465  0.0064  0.0264  0.0224  0.2645  0.07
Random 3   65  0.0052  0.0065  0.0265  0.0230  0.1260  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).