Chiu 1999

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   9  0.679  0.0212  0.115  0.5944  0.0716  0.20
Ax 1995   22  0.6332  0.0024  0.1524  0.3948  0.0723  0.17
Bacha 1998   42  0.5557  0.0052  0.0553  0.0560  0.0463  0.04
Barbosa 1983   14  0.6517  0.014  0.187  0.5612  0.493  0.52
BenOr 1989   46  0.5346  0.0035  0.0651  0.0655  0.0557  0.05
Biret 1990   40  0.5628  0.0040  0.0641  0.0646  0.0644  0.06
Brailowsky 1960   49  0.5240  0.0050  0.0650  0.0647  0.0737  0.06
Chiu 1999   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Clidat 1994   11  0.6622  0.0117  0.1113  0.5138  0.0914  0.21
Cohen 1997   59  0.4525  0.0059  0.0561  0.0535  0.0656  0.05
Cortot 1951   63  0.2658  0.0063  0.0560  0.0542  0.0559  0.05
Csalog 1996   32  0.6024  0.0036  0.0554  0.0556  0.0551  0.05
Czerny 1989   29  0.6112  0.0131  0.0930  0.2335  0.0726  0.13
Ezaki 2006   33  0.6043  0.0039  0.0647  0.0662  0.0445  0.05
Falvay 1989   30  0.6111  0.0226  0.0725  0.2750  0.0530  0.12
Fiorentino 1962   25  0.6264  0.0030  0.0827  0.2454  0.0631  0.12
Fliere 1977   20  0.645  0.0328  0.0726  0.2454  0.0629  0.12
Fou 1978   7  0.697  0.027  0.179  0.5332  0.1211  0.25
Francois 1956   10  0.6733  0.0013  0.1016  0.4815  0.416  0.44
Goldenweiser 1946   62  0.3534  0.0062  0.0556  0.0556  0.0461  0.04
Gornostaeva 1994   36  0.5726  0.0029  0.0728  0.2427  0.2013  0.22
Groot 1988   34  0.5850  0.0025  0.0732  0.2152  0.0634  0.11
Hatto 1993   23  0.6345  0.0016  0.1114  0.5152  0.0624  0.17
Hatto 1997   13  0.6548  0.0014  0.1110  0.5348  0.0620  0.18
Horszowski 1983   58  0.4654  0.0061  0.0649  0.0645  0.0547  0.05
Indjic 2001   16  0.6439  0.0015  0.1211  0.5344  0.0717  0.19
Katin 1996   19  0.6459  0.0023  0.1822  0.4445  0.0719  0.18
Kiepura 1999   47  0.5221  0.0151  0.0559  0.0548  0.0546  0.05
Korecka 1992   61  0.4156  0.0060  0.0462  0.0459  0.0464  0.04
Kushner 1990   52  0.5031  0.0041  0.0735  0.0753  0.0450  0.05
Lilamand 2001   50  0.5161  0.0045  0.0555  0.0540  0.0652  0.05
Luisada 1990   60  0.4562  0.0058  0.0638  0.0661  0.0453  0.05
Luisada 2008   56  0.4960  0.0054  0.0646  0.0661  0.0365  0.04
Lushtak 2004   41  0.5637  0.0037  0.0643  0.0652  0.0641  0.06
Malcuzynski 1951   21  0.643  0.1310  0.1123  0.4163  0.0428  0.13
Malcuzynski 1961   27  0.6229  0.0011  0.0920  0.4435  0.0915  0.20
Magaloff 1977   17  0.6430  0.0018  0.1417  0.4811  0.494  0.48
Magin 1975   51  0.5135  0.0055  0.0639  0.0640  0.0739  0.06
Meguri 1997   12  0.664  0.0319  0.1219  0.4513  0.349  0.39
Milkina 1970   8  0.6816  0.019  0.158  0.5435  0.1212  0.25
Mohovich 1999   38  0.5755  0.0038  0.0734  0.0762  0.0455  0.05
Nezu 2005   24  0.6323  0.0021  0.1321  0.4449  0.0721  0.18
Ohlsson 1999   3  0.722  0.152  0.264  0.6016  0.462  0.53
Olejniczak 1990   53  0.5065  0.0048  0.0557  0.0562  0.0560  0.05
Osinska 1989   43  0.5544  0.0047  0.0736  0.0759  0.0448  0.05
Perlemuter 1992   55  0.4936  0.0057  0.0463  0.0443  0.0562  0.04
Poblocka 1999   26  0.6242  0.0032  0.1231  0.2245  0.0632  0.11
Rangell 2001   35  0.5827  0.0042  0.0640  0.0651  0.0558  0.05
Richter 1960   54  0.5020  0.0146  0.0558  0.0538  0.0740  0.06
Richter 1961   37  0.578  0.0233  0.1133  0.1131  0.1133  0.11
Rosen 1989   39  0.5618  0.0143  0.0644  0.0661  0.0454  0.05
Rubinstein 1939   4  0.7213  0.013  0.166  0.5624  0.337  0.43
Rubinstein 1952   1  0.731  0.381  0.373  0.6010  0.501  0.55
Rubinstein 1966   6  0.7015  0.016  0.2412  0.5226  0.348  0.42
Rudanovskaya 2007   28  0.6114  0.0127  0.0729  0.2417  0.4610  0.33
Shebanova 2002   5  0.7110  0.028  0.192  0.6218  0.355  0.47
Smith 1975   48  0.5263  0.0053  0.0642  0.0650  0.0638  0.06
Sztompka 1959   57  0.4851  0.0056  0.0652  0.0660  0.0449  0.05
Tanyel 1992   44  0.5547  0.0049  0.0648  0.0649  0.0642  0.06
Tsujii 2005   2  0.736  0.025  0.251  0.6761  0.0425  0.16
Uninsky 1959   15  0.6441  0.0020  0.1215  0.4848  0.0718  0.18
Vardi 1988   18  0.6452  0.0022  0.1518  0.4650  0.0622  0.17
Wasowski 1980   45  0.5538  0.0044  0.0645  0.0634  0.0836  0.07
Zimerman 1975   31  0.6119  0.0134  0.0737  0.0759  0.0543  0.06
Random 1   65  -0.0253  0.0065  0.0265  0.029  0.4635  0.10
Random 2   64  0.0249  0.0064  0.0364  0.033  0.5727  0.13
Random 3   66  -0.0566  0.0066  0.0166  0.0129  0.1166  0.03

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).