Gornostaeva 1994

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   5  0.638  0.0210  0.127  0.5348  0.0614  0.18
Ax 1995   20  0.5525  0.0034  0.0737  0.0754  0.0643  0.06
Bacha 1998   27  0.5223  0.0131  0.0831  0.1741  0.0631  0.10
Barbosa 1983   3  0.6619  0.017  0.1116  0.3648  0.0622  0.15
BenOr 1989   21  0.5542  0.0032  0.0532  0.1052  0.0535  0.07
Biret 1990   36  0.5043  0.0046  0.0555  0.0563  0.0464  0.04
Brailowsky 1960   40  0.5034  0.0045  0.0461  0.0450  0.0647  0.05
Chiu 1999   14  0.5729  0.0026  0.0727  0.2028  0.245  0.22
Clidat 1994   8  0.616  0.038  0.108  0.5141  0.088  0.20
Cohen 1997   56  0.4064  0.0061  0.0459  0.0457  0.0563  0.04
Cortot 1951   53  0.4236  0.0062  0.0462  0.0436  0.0652  0.05
Csalog 1996   32  0.5127  0.0043  0.0548  0.0562  0.0459  0.04
Czerny 1989   43  0.4950  0.0019  0.1018  0.3654  0.0523  0.13
Ezaki 2006   12  0.591  0.201  0.203  0.6030  0.232  0.37
Falvay 1989   29  0.5258  0.0027  0.0626  0.2160  0.0433  0.09
Fiorentino 1962   10  0.6011  0.0212  0.159  0.5048  0.0711  0.19
Fliere 1977   2  0.674  0.113  0.171  0.6829  0.291  0.44
Fou 1978   9  0.6147  0.0016  0.0817  0.3645  0.0721  0.16
Francois 1956   33  0.5144  0.0042  0.0741  0.0746  0.0644  0.06
Goldenweiser 1946   63  0.2115  0.0163  0.0645  0.0659  0.0446  0.05
Gornostaeva 1994   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Groot 1988   52  0.4330  0.0047  0.0546  0.0548  0.0651  0.05
Hatto 1993   42  0.4913  0.0113  0.0911  0.4343  0.0718  0.17
Hatto 1997   39  0.507  0.0314  0.1412  0.4342  0.0717  0.17
Horszowski 1983   61  0.3452  0.0051  0.0549  0.0557  0.0454  0.04
Indjic 2001   38  0.5046  0.0015  0.1313  0.4240  0.0813  0.18
Katin 1996   23  0.5432  0.0030  0.0925  0.2446  0.0724  0.13
Kiepura 1999   17  0.5728  0.0041  0.0738  0.0744  0.0637  0.06
Korecka 1992   55  0.4145  0.0058  0.0553  0.0551  0.0549  0.05
Kushner 1990   37  0.5020  0.0152  0.0556  0.0559  0.0458  0.04
Lilamand 2001   58  0.3848  0.0060  0.0643  0.0642  0.0639  0.06
Luisada 1990   59  0.3662  0.0059  0.0550  0.0556  0.0550  0.05
Luisada 2008   54  0.4240  0.0057  0.0551  0.0559  0.0460  0.04
Lushtak 2004   30  0.5226  0.0033  0.0740  0.0757  0.0641  0.06
Malcuzynski 1951   4  0.6517  0.016  0.135  0.5656  0.0519  0.17
Malcuzynski 1961   1  0.693  0.135  0.162  0.6141  0.069  0.19
Magaloff 1977   16  0.5735  0.0017  0.0822  0.3225  0.243  0.28
Magin 1975   41  0.4924  0.0125  0.0930  0.1846  0.0630  0.10
Meguri 1997   34  0.515  0.049  0.1324  0.3128  0.174  0.23
Milkina 1970   28  0.5265  0.0028  0.0729  0.1954  0.0532  0.10
Mohovich 1999   47  0.4610  0.0223  0.0821  0.3432  0.137  0.21
Nezu 2005   13  0.5855  0.0029  0.0828  0.2054  0.0628  0.11
Ohlsson 1999   44  0.4941  0.0044  0.0457  0.0460  0.0457  0.04
Olejniczak 1990   50  0.4431  0.0048  0.0458  0.0454  0.0653  0.05
Osinska 1989   15  0.5718  0.0122  0.0715  0.3742  0.0720  0.16
Perlemuter 1992   62  0.3257  0.0055  0.0554  0.0556  0.0455  0.04
Poblocka 1999   19  0.5659  0.0024  0.0919  0.3537  0.0815  0.17
Rangell 2001   26  0.5353  0.0039  0.0933  0.0952  0.0536  0.07
Richter 1960   51  0.4422  0.0140  0.0739  0.0752  0.0540  0.06
Richter 1961   46  0.4714  0.0135  0.0934  0.0929  0.1229  0.10
Rosen 1989   48  0.4516  0.0149  0.0552  0.0560  0.0462  0.04
Rubinstein 1939   25  0.5438  0.0021  0.1014  0.3735  0.0816  0.17
Rubinstein 1952   6  0.6233  0.0011  0.1110  0.4941  0.0712  0.19
Rubinstein 1966   7  0.612  0.192  0.216  0.5336  0.096  0.22
Rudanovskaya 2007   60  0.3521  0.0153  0.0463  0.0457  0.0561  0.04
Shebanova 2002   22  0.5466  0.0020  0.0920  0.3558  0.0525  0.13
Smith 1975   49  0.4537  0.0050  0.0644  0.0658  0.0548  0.05
Sztompka 1959   57  0.3954  0.0054  0.0460  0.0458  0.0556  0.04
Tanyel 1992   24  0.5439  0.0038  0.0742  0.0757  0.0542  0.06
Tsujii 2005   11  0.609  0.024  0.234  0.5850  0.0610  0.19
Uninsky 1959   31  0.5112  0.0237  0.0935  0.0962  0.0438  0.06
Vardi 1988   45  0.4861  0.0036  0.0836  0.0839  0.0734  0.07
Wasowski 1980   35  0.5156  0.0056  0.0547  0.0557  0.0545  0.05
Zimerman 1975   18  0.5649  0.0018  0.0723  0.3250  0.0527  0.13
Random 1   64  0.0051  0.0064  0.0364  0.033  0.5926  0.13
Random 2   66  -0.0863  0.0066  0.0166  0.0160  0.0366  0.02
Random 3   65  -0.0660  0.0065  0.0265  0.0244  0.0465  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).