Clidat 1994

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   13  0.553  0.192  0.233  0.588  0.561  0.57
Ax 1995   17  0.5444  0.0022  0.1124  0.2953  0.0735  0.14
Bacha 1998   57  0.3726  0.0052  0.0555  0.0541  0.0754  0.06
Barbosa 1983   33  0.5016  0.0131  0.0729  0.1829  0.1626  0.17
BenOr 1989   10  0.5512  0.018  0.1117  0.4143  0.0921  0.19
Biret 1990   26  0.5231  0.0036  0.0546  0.0533  0.1152  0.07
Brailowsky 1960   18  0.5327  0.0023  0.0916  0.4256  0.0628  0.16
Chiu 1999   31  0.5024  0.0035  0.0641  0.066  0.6019  0.19
Clidat 1994   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Cohen 1997   63  0.2334  0.0063  0.0547  0.0557  0.0464  0.04
Cortot 1951   59  0.3558  0.0061  0.0549  0.0527  0.2839  0.12
Csalog 1996   38  0.4839  0.0049  0.0544  0.0538  0.0857  0.06
Czerny 1989   45  0.4545  0.0046  0.0461  0.0460  0.0563  0.04
Ezaki 2006   32  0.5014  0.0124  0.0825  0.2732  0.1516  0.20
Falvay 1989   8  0.5659  0.0014  0.1111  0.4645  0.0820  0.19
Fiorentino 1962   21  0.5325  0.0019  0.0922  0.3140  0.1024  0.18
Fliere 1977   43  0.4528  0.0047  0.0551  0.0534  0.0947  0.07
Fou 1978   30  0.5150  0.0018  0.0920  0.3732  0.1511  0.24
Francois 1956   53  0.4319  0.0130  0.0732  0.1432  0.1238  0.13
Goldenweiser 1946   55  0.4354  0.0057  0.0553  0.0537  0.0660  0.05
Gornostaeva 1994   44  0.4536  0.0053  0.0552  0.0544  0.0662  0.05
Groot 1988   19  0.5320  0.0027  0.0728  0.1948  0.0640  0.11
Hatto 1993   4  0.5755  0.0016  0.0815  0.4340  0.0822  0.19
Hatto 1997   9  0.5635  0.0020  0.0919  0.3940  0.0823  0.18
Horszowski 1983   60  0.3538  0.0058  0.0638  0.0613  0.4227  0.16
Indjic 2001   5  0.5741  0.0017  0.1013  0.4453  0.0630  0.16
Katin 1996   49  0.4453  0.0037  0.0550  0.0548  0.0755  0.06
Kiepura 1999   36  0.4932  0.0051  0.0834  0.0851  0.0646  0.07
Korecka 1992   34  0.4929  0.0039  0.0835  0.0833  0.1241  0.10
Kushner 1990   15  0.5421  0.0012  0.119  0.5230  0.235  0.35
Lilamand 2001   62  0.2849  0.0062  0.0457  0.0430  0.1149  0.07
Luisada 1990   42  0.4762  0.0048  0.0548  0.0544  0.0951  0.07
Luisada 2008   47  0.4446  0.0054  0.0545  0.0535  0.1243  0.08
Lushtak 2004   3  0.589  0.0210  0.118  0.5328  0.216  0.33
Malcuzynski 1951   2  0.592  0.223  0.2212  0.4540  0.0918  0.20
Malcuzynski 1961   7  0.564  0.055  0.152  0.5943  0.0814  0.22
Magaloff 1977   52  0.4322  0.0056  0.0736  0.0737  0.0944  0.08
Magin 1975   24  0.5243  0.0032  0.1127  0.2142  0.0933  0.14
Meguri 1997   50  0.4452  0.0044  0.0554  0.0519  0.4034  0.14
Milkina 1970   22  0.535  0.044  0.1910  0.5132  0.158  0.28
Mohovich 1999   23  0.5217  0.0115  0.0921  0.3134  0.0831  0.16
Nezu 2005   16  0.5451  0.0021  0.1218  0.4032  0.1610  0.25
Ohlsson 1999   6  0.561  0.231  0.221  0.6017  0.502  0.55
Olejniczak 1990   1  0.606  0.046  0.165  0.5730  0.234  0.36
Osinska 1989   35  0.4942  0.0038  0.0640  0.0649  0.0848  0.07
Perlemuter 1992   58  0.3710  0.0260  0.0462  0.0437  0.0661  0.05
Poblocka 1999   39  0.4866  0.0040  0.0639  0.0639  0.1142  0.08
Rangell 2001   56  0.4156  0.0055  0.0543  0.0529  0.3337  0.13
Richter 1960   40  0.4711  0.0134  0.0642  0.0617  0.4129  0.16
Richter 1961   41  0.4713  0.0150  0.0637  0.0610  0.5025  0.17
Rosen 1989   20  0.5340  0.0033  0.1233  0.1244  0.0645  0.08
Rubinstein 1939   29  0.5160  0.0029  0.0830  0.1841  0.0936  0.13
Rubinstein 1952   51  0.4347  0.0042  0.0463  0.0440  0.1059  0.06
Rubinstein 1966   54  0.4357  0.0045  0.0556  0.0551  0.0758  0.06
Rudanovskaya 2007   37  0.488  0.0241  0.0458  0.048  0.5532  0.15
Shebanova 2002   48  0.4423  0.0028  0.0831  0.1718  0.459  0.28
Smith 1975   46  0.4448  0.0043  0.0459  0.0448  0.0853  0.06
Sztompka 1959   61  0.3563  0.0059  0.0460  0.0440  0.0856  0.06
Tanyel 1992   11  0.5530  0.0011  0.126  0.5539  0.0815  0.21
Tsujii 2005   14  0.547  0.039  0.107  0.5437  0.1013  0.23
Uninsky 1959   12  0.5515  0.017  0.184  0.5728  0.283  0.40
Vardi 1988   27  0.5118  0.0113  0.1114  0.4333  0.1212  0.23
Wasowski 1980   25  0.5237  0.0026  0.0726  0.2120  0.427  0.30
Zimerman 1975   28  0.5133  0.0025  0.0623  0.3031  0.1317  0.20
Random 1   66  -0.0365  0.0066  0.0166  0.0151  0.0466  0.02
Random 2   65  -0.0261  0.0065  0.0265  0.0222  0.2450  0.07
Random 3   64  -0.0164  0.0064  0.0264  0.0241  0.0565  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).