Czerny 1989

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   35  0.715  0.063  0.174  0.4925  0.248  0.34
Ax 1995   23  0.7437  0.0035  0.0549  0.0543  0.0746  0.06
Bacha 1998   42  0.6717  0.0119  0.0725  0.2119  0.4012  0.29
Barbosa 1983   57  0.488  0.0412  0.0717  0.2724  0.3510  0.31
BenOr 1989   60  0.4032  0.0048  0.0551  0.0542  0.0653  0.05
Biret 1990   40  0.6812  0.0225  0.0631  0.1528  0.1724  0.16
Brailowsky 1960   45  0.6634  0.0050  0.0642  0.0643  0.0645  0.06
Chiu 1999   37  0.6946  0.0042  0.0736  0.0724  0.2827  0.14
Clidat 1994   22  0.7554  0.0032  0.0930  0.1747  0.0640  0.10
Cohen 1997   59  0.4351  0.0061  0.0363  0.0357  0.0466  0.03
Cortot 1951   63  0.2042  0.0063  0.0553  0.0550  0.0463  0.04
Csalog 1996   33  0.7244  0.0044  0.0460  0.0454  0.0459  0.04
Czerny 1989   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Ezaki 2006   13  0.7858  0.0031  0.0827  0.2049  0.0632  0.11
Falvay 1989   3  0.8210  0.037  0.147  0.4419  0.324  0.38
Fiorentino 1962   21  0.7561  0.0020  0.0716  0.2735  0.1023  0.16
Fliere 1977   7  0.791  0.141  0.141  0.5519  0.371  0.45
Fou 1978   31  0.724  0.094  0.126  0.4419  0.403  0.42
Francois 1956   47  0.6521  0.0140  0.0646  0.0629  0.2036  0.11
Goldenweiser 1946   53  0.6125  0.0060  0.0461  0.0438  0.0647  0.05
Gornostaeva 1994   58  0.4545  0.0043  0.0734  0.0724  0.3126  0.15
Groot 1988   26  0.7431  0.0045  0.0458  0.0439  0.0655  0.05
Hatto 1993   10  0.7950  0.0027  0.0619  0.2553  0.0535  0.11
Hatto 1997   8  0.7955  0.0030  0.1021  0.2539  0.0629  0.12
Horszowski 1983   25  0.7460  0.0047  0.0643  0.0623  0.1837  0.10
Indjic 2001   9  0.7949  0.0029  0.0520  0.2537  0.0631  0.12
Katin 1996   6  0.8062  0.0022  0.129  0.3420  0.367  0.35
Kiepura 1999   61  0.3924  0.0155  0.0459  0.0452  0.0457  0.04
Korecka 1992   56  0.4956  0.0062  0.0457  0.0458  0.0458  0.04
Kushner 1990   62  0.3463  0.0059  0.0554  0.0539  0.0552  0.05
Lilamand 2001   50  0.6457  0.0057  0.0550  0.0562  0.0460  0.04
Luisada 1990   24  0.7427  0.0038  0.0639  0.0623  0.2234  0.11
Luisada 2008   43  0.6636  0.0037  0.0638  0.0617  0.3228  0.14
Lushtak 2004   30  0.7318  0.0121  0.1015  0.2818  0.3511  0.31
Malcuzynski 1951   36  0.7011  0.039  0.0810  0.3429  0.1717  0.24
Malcuzynski 1961   55  0.5833  0.0026  0.0729  0.1744  0.0639  0.10
Magaloff 1977   41  0.6853  0.0034  0.0737  0.0729  0.2130  0.12
Magin 1975   46  0.6626  0.0053  0.0641  0.0658  0.0448  0.05
Meguri 1997   44  0.6615  0.0136  0.0640  0.0630  0.1043  0.08
Milkina 1970   16  0.7748  0.0024  0.0623  0.2453  0.0533  0.11
Mohovich 1999   4  0.8220  0.0114  0.0613  0.3133  0.0822  0.16
Nezu 2005   48  0.6413  0.0218  0.0614  0.3037  0.0825  0.15
Ohlsson 1999   20  0.7528  0.0041  0.0547  0.0546  0.0551  0.05
Olejniczak 1990   49  0.6439  0.0049  0.0644  0.0646  0.0556  0.05
Osinska 1989   18  0.759  0.0317  0.0711  0.3429  0.2213  0.27
Perlemuter 1992   32  0.7230  0.0052  0.0552  0.0525  0.2138  0.10
Poblocka 1999   17  0.7641  0.0028  0.0624  0.2232  0.1220  0.16
Rangell 2001   29  0.7347  0.0039  0.0548  0.0553  0.0554  0.05
Richter 1960   19  0.7514  0.0110  0.0826  0.2016  0.3514  0.26
Richter 1961   11  0.786  0.068  0.1412  0.3120  0.319  0.31
Rosen 1989   28  0.7335  0.0023  0.0632  0.1026  0.2521  0.16
Rubinstein 1939   12  0.7840  0.0013  0.078  0.3522  0.356  0.35
Rubinstein 1952   38  0.6922  0.0111  0.0618  0.2625  0.2516  0.25
Rubinstein 1966   14  0.772  0.132  0.125  0.4515  0.452  0.45
Rudanovskaya 2007   5  0.8129  0.0015  0.0628  0.1821  0.3415  0.25
Shebanova 2002   1  0.853  0.115  0.123  0.4921  0.275  0.36
Smith 1975   51  0.6316  0.0156  0.0462  0.0460  0.0364  0.03
Sztompka 1959   39  0.6819  0.0154  0.0456  0.0436  0.0650  0.05
Tanyel 1992   52  0.6252  0.0058  0.0555  0.0550  0.0461  0.04
Tsujii 2005   2  0.847  0.056  0.152  0.5032  0.1019  0.22
Uninsky 1959   27  0.7338  0.0051  0.0735  0.0761  0.0449  0.05
Vardi 1988   15  0.7743  0.0016  0.0722  0.2425  0.2318  0.23
Wasowski 1980   54  0.5959  0.0046  0.0645  0.0638  0.0744  0.06
Zimerman 1975   34  0.7123  0.0133  0.0733  0.0728  0.1541  0.10
Random 1   64  -0.0264  0.0064  0.0264  0.0211  0.3942  0.09
Random 2   65  -0.0966  0.0065  0.0265  0.0254  0.0465  0.03
Random 3   66  -0.1065  0.0066  0.0166  0.0126  0.1962  0.04

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).