Lushtak 2004

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   32  0.6621  0.0033  0.0639  0.0635  0.0643  0.06
Ashkenazy 1981   1  0.761  0.341  0.331  0.7534  0.128  0.30
Beliavsky 2004   58  0.5353  0.0062  0.0553  0.0545  0.0548  0.05
BenOr 1989   10  0.7111  0.0214  0.1713  0.4547  0.0618  0.16
Biret 1990   3  0.746  0.044  0.243  0.6545  0.0612  0.20
Blet 2003   12  0.7134  0.0016  0.0920  0.3444  0.0620  0.14
Block 1995   23  0.6840  0.0037  0.0637  0.0647  0.0555  0.05
Brailowsky 1960   47  0.6260  0.0052  0.0638  0.0657  0.0446  0.05
Chiu 1999   31  0.6729  0.0026  0.0727  0.1944  0.0627  0.11
Clidat 1994   46  0.6227  0.0045  0.0640  0.0650  0.0554  0.05
Cohen 1997   36  0.6658  0.0043  0.0552  0.0538  0.0744  0.06
Coop 1987   29  0.6752  0.0027  0.0726  0.2144  0.0629  0.11
Cortot 1951   2  0.754  0.073  0.216  0.6216  0.412  0.50
Czerny 1949   43  0.6441  0.0047  0.0644  0.0662  0.0553  0.05
Czerny 1949b   15  0.7015  0.018  0.238  0.5825  0.314  0.42
Ezaki 2006   6  0.735  0.057  0.207  0.6131  0.197  0.34
Falvay 1989   7  0.7214  0.0110  0.129  0.4944  0.0614  0.17
Ferenczy 1958   51  0.6045  0.0048  0.0545  0.0546  0.0551  0.05
Fiorentino 1962   25  0.6861  0.0021  0.1017  0.3560  0.0426  0.12
Fliere 1977   16  0.6923  0.0023  0.0823  0.3042  0.0621  0.13
Fou 1978   41  0.6549  0.0034  0.0643  0.0649  0.0642  0.06
Francois 1956   60  0.5247  0.0061  0.0550  0.0522  0.3523  0.13
Hatto 1997   14  0.7035  0.0017  0.1019  0.3430  0.1310  0.21
Horowitz 1971   49  0.6237  0.0046  0.0546  0.0540  0.0745  0.06
Horowitz 1985   56  0.5625  0.0036  0.0642  0.0629  0.1433  0.09
Indjic 2001   17  0.6950  0.0029  0.0728  0.1851  0.0537  0.09
Kapell 1951   37  0.6654  0.0031  0.0731  0.1553  0.0534  0.09
Kiepura 1999   48  0.6236  0.0054  0.0549  0.0561  0.0359  0.04
Kilenyi 1937   52  0.6033  0.0050  0.0554  0.0548  0.0652  0.05
Kissin 1993   39  0.669  0.0222  0.0921  0.3050  0.0524  0.12
Kitain 1937   62  0.4924  0.0057  0.0460  0.0441  0.0657  0.05
Kushner 1990   24  0.6822  0.0020  0.1022  0.307  0.623  0.43
Levy 1951   21  0.6916  0.0113  0.1214  0.4241  0.0616  0.16
Luisada 1990   8  0.728  0.0211  0.1611  0.4634  0.0911  0.20
Lushtak 2004   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Lympany 1968   34  0.6619  0.0132  0.0632  0.1220  0.2413  0.17
Magaloff 1977   38  0.6631  0.0040  0.0933  0.0942  0.0738  0.08
Magaloff 1977b   40  0.6518  0.0139  0.0735  0.0738  0.0741  0.07
Magin 1975   19  0.6917  0.0138  0.0834  0.0842  0.0639  0.07
Milkina 1970   20  0.6946  0.0028  0.0630  0.1838  0.0631  0.10
Mohovich 1999   27  0.6751  0.0030  0.0729  0.1838  0.0632  0.10
Nadelmann 1956   33  0.6643  0.0041  0.0736  0.0762  0.0349  0.05
Ohlsson 1999   55  0.5663  0.0060  0.0557  0.0557  0.0462  0.04
Olejniczac 1990   18  0.6964  0.0019  0.0916  0.3661  0.0425  0.12
Olejniczak 1991   22  0.697  0.0318  0.0815  0.3739  0.0717  0.16
Osinska 1989   4  0.742  0.135  0.242  0.6531  0.195  0.35
Paderewski 1912   59  0.5338  0.0056  0.0555  0.0561  0.0364  0.04
Perahia 1994   35  0.6620  0.0115  0.0918  0.3512  0.356  0.35
Perlemuter 1986   50  0.6162  0.0053  0.0547  0.0536  0.0940  0.07
Poblocka 1999   13  0.7012  0.0112  0.1012  0.4656  0.0519  0.15
Rangell 2001   44  0.6332  0.0049  0.0556  0.0557  0.0558  0.05
Risler 1920   61  0.5048  0.0058  0.0362  0.0335  0.0847  0.05
Rosen 1989   42  0.6544  0.0042  0.0551  0.0530  0.1536  0.09
Rubinstein 1939   54  0.5842  0.0055  0.0558  0.0562  0.0361  0.04
Rubinstein 1952   26  0.6726  0.0024  0.0824  0.2838  0.0622  0.13
Rubinstein 1966   30  0.6730  0.0035  0.0641  0.0646  0.0550  0.05
Rummel 1943   57  0.5459  0.0059  0.0461  0.0455  0.0465  0.04
Shebanova 2002   11  0.7110  0.026  0.205  0.6211  0.471  0.54
Smith 1975   28  0.6739  0.0025  0.0825  0.2650  0.0528  0.11
Szpilman 1948   53  0.5955  0.0051  0.0459  0.0459  0.0460  0.04
Uninsky 1971   45  0.6328  0.0044  0.0548  0.0557  0.0463  0.04
Wasowski 1980   5  0.733  0.132  0.194  0.6435  0.099  0.24
Weissenberg 1971   9  0.7213  0.019  0.2010  0.4843  0.0615  0.17
Random 1    64  0.0256  0.0064  0.0264  0.0211  0.4930  0.10
Random 2   63  0.0357  0.0063  0.0263  0.027  0.3835  0.09
Random 3   65  -0.0365  0.0065  0.0265  0.0230  0.1156  0.05

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).