Fou 1978

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   13  0.6412  0.0227  0.1027  0.255  0.6022  0.39
Ax 1995   5  0.706  0.074  0.183  0.7212  0.624  0.67
Bacha 1998   52  0.4756  0.0054  0.0648  0.0635  0.1053  0.08
Barbosa 1983   26  0.6144  0.0031  0.1029  0.2216  0.3729  0.29
BenOr 1989   27  0.6047  0.0032  0.0831  0.1627  0.2733  0.21
Biret 1990   49  0.5024  0.0043  0.0740  0.0745  0.0956  0.08
Brailowsky 1960   39  0.5635  0.0035  0.0933  0.0935  0.1051  0.09
Chiu 1999   45  0.5333  0.0045  0.0557  0.052  0.6637  0.18
Clidat 1994   48  0.5136  0.0028  0.0632  0.1520  0.3731  0.24
Cohen 1997   62  0.3254  0.0063  0.0553  0.0555  0.0565  0.05
Cortot 1951   59  0.4137  0.0060  0.0462  0.0420  0.3948  0.12
Csalog 1996   41  0.5565  0.0047  0.0649  0.0628  0.2049  0.11
Czerny 1989   7  0.701  0.201  0.201  0.742  0.751  0.74
Ezaki 2006   25  0.6123  0.0030  0.0730  0.2227  0.3030  0.26
Falvay 1989   3  0.7025  0.005  0.146  0.6918  0.479  0.57
Fiorentino 1962   23  0.6218  0.0121  0.0822  0.4323  0.3226  0.37
Fliere 1977   40  0.5528  0.0037  0.0744  0.0728  0.1947  0.12
Fou 1978   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Francois 1956   47  0.5151  0.0049  0.0745  0.0737  0.0957  0.08
Goldenweiser 1946   53  0.4621  0.0155  0.0647  0.0619  0.4341  0.16
Gornostaeva 1994   55  0.4559  0.0056  0.0559  0.0543  0.0760  0.06
Groot 1988   29  0.5915  0.0124  0.1025  0.3520  0.4124  0.38
Hatto 1993   22  0.6317  0.0120  0.1716  0.4917  0.5015  0.49
Hatto 1997   15  0.6414  0.0115  0.1415  0.5018  0.5113  0.50
Horszowski 1983   63  0.3163  0.0062  0.0558  0.0539  0.0561  0.05
Indjic 2001   19  0.6345  0.0019  0.1014  0.5019  0.4717  0.48
Katin 1996   12  0.6511  0.0211  0.1713  0.5416  0.4514  0.49
Kiepura 1999   4  0.703  0.098  0.169  0.632  0.752  0.69
Korecka 1992   30  0.5839  0.0029  0.0828  0.2416  0.6023  0.38
Kushner 1990   34  0.5861  0.0038  0.0934  0.0939  0.0952  0.09
Lilamand 2001   56  0.4460  0.0057  0.0560  0.0510  0.4744  0.15
Luisada 1990   37  0.5730  0.0042  0.0838  0.0826  0.3142  0.16
Luisada 2008   35  0.5831  0.0039  0.0742  0.0723  0.5035  0.19
Lushtak 2004   32  0.5822  0.0034  0.0835  0.0835  0.0955  0.08
Malcuzynski 1951   9  0.688  0.067  0.167  0.6714  0.538  0.60
Malcuzynski 1961   6  0.707  0.076  0.184  0.7110  0.576  0.64
Magaloff 1977   50  0.4826  0.0046  0.0554  0.055  0.6838  0.18
Magin 1975   38  0.5746  0.0041  0.0836  0.0830  0.2045  0.13
Meguri 1997   57  0.4453  0.0053  0.0556  0.0525  0.3346  0.13
Milkina 1970   20  0.6329  0.0014  0.1311  0.5823  0.3421  0.44
Mohovich 1999   54  0.4550  0.0052  0.0555  0.0549  0.0664  0.05
Nezu 2005   10  0.6852  0.0012  0.1312  0.5513  0.6010  0.57
Ohlsson 1999   14  0.6457  0.0023  0.1320  0.4415  0.5316  0.48
Olejniczak 1990   36  0.579  0.0318  0.1223  0.4125  0.3625  0.38
Osinska 1989   11  0.6641  0.0017  0.1710  0.5925  0.3718  0.47
Perlemuter 1992   60  0.3555  0.0061  0.0652  0.0627  0.1650  0.10
Poblocka 1999   16  0.6343  0.0022  0.1221  0.4311  0.6511  0.53
Rangell 2001   46  0.5332  0.0051  0.0650  0.0619  0.4840  0.17
Richter 1960   58  0.4120  0.0158  0.0461  0.0432  0.1458  0.07
Richter 1961   61  0.3448  0.0059  0.0463  0.0435  0.0762  0.05
Rosen 1989   28  0.5910  0.0325  0.0924  0.3524  0.3527  0.35
Rubinstein 1939   24  0.625  0.089  0.1718  0.4815  0.5912  0.53
Rubinstein 1952   21  0.6313  0.0113  0.1117  0.4815  0.4620  0.47
Rubinstein 1966   8  0.6927  0.0010  0.208  0.676  0.635  0.65
Rudanovskaya 2007   51  0.4842  0.0050  0.0743  0.076  0.5834  0.20
Shebanova 2002   31  0.5819  0.0140  0.0741  0.073  0.6732  0.22
Smith 1975   33  0.5840  0.0033  0.0839  0.0827  0.2743  0.15
Sztompka 1959   44  0.5434  0.0048  0.0746  0.0721  0.4139  0.17
Tanyel 1992   42  0.5449  0.0036  0.0837  0.0849  0.0659  0.07
Tsujii 2005   2  0.704  0.083  0.195  0.6914  0.537  0.60
Uninsky 1959   18  0.6362  0.0026  0.0826  0.3227  0.2928  0.30
Vardi 1988   17  0.6316  0.0116  0.1119  0.4619  0.4919  0.47
Wasowski 1980   43  0.5438  0.0044  0.0651  0.0615  0.5336  0.18
Zimerman 1975   1  0.722  0.112  0.142  0.728  0.643  0.68
Random 1   66  -0.0266  0.0065  0.0165  0.0117  0.2563  0.05
Random 2   64  0.0058  0.0064  0.0264  0.0218  0.3154  0.08
Random 3   65  0.0064  0.0066  0.0166  0.0144  0.0566  0.02

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).