Fiorentino 1962

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   17  0.8616  0.018  0.099  0.4520  0.2514  0.34
Ax 1995   59  0.6940  0.0059  0.0359  0.0355  0.0464  0.03
Bacha 1998   36  0.8215  0.0111  0.0813  0.4021  0.3810  0.39
Barbosa 1983   60  0.6718  0.0153  0.0457  0.0448  0.0653  0.05
BenOr 1989   22  0.8420  0.0038  0.0551  0.0522  0.1741  0.09
Biret 1990   3  0.901  0.311  0.312  0.629  0.511  0.56
Brailowsky 1960   35  0.8263  0.0028  0.0727  0.1920  0.3221  0.25
Chiu 1999   38  0.8253  0.0055  0.0548  0.0552  0.0457  0.04
Clidat 1994   29  0.8319  0.0110  0.1011  0.4212  0.516  0.46
Cohen 1997   50  0.7743  0.0041  0.0640  0.062  0.6127  0.19
Cortot 1951   33  0.8237  0.0037  0.0734  0.076  0.4329  0.17
Csalog 1996   15  0.868  0.0221  0.0817  0.3510  0.478  0.41
Czerny 1989   56  0.7141  0.0058  0.0364  0.0352  0.0462  0.03
Ezaki 2006   47  0.7822  0.0062  0.0360  0.0363  0.0361  0.03
Falvay 1989   10  0.8821  0.0015  0.128  0.4621  0.2812  0.36
Fiorentino 1962   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Fliere 1977   6  0.8933  0.0023  0.0719  0.3224  0.2517  0.28
Fou 1978   53  0.739  0.0242  0.0550  0.0545  0.0651  0.05
Francois 1956   55  0.7265  0.0061  0.0361  0.0346  0.0560  0.04
Goldenweiser 1946   61  0.6439  0.0056  0.0458  0.0445  0.0649  0.05
Gornostaeva 1994   40  0.8251  0.0034  0.0547  0.0525  0.1840  0.09
Groot 1988   4  0.8923  0.004  0.136  0.5026  0.2811  0.37
Hatto 1993   34  0.8252  0.0046  0.0933  0.0947  0.0645  0.07
Hatto 1997   44  0.8058  0.0045  0.0552  0.0540  0.0748  0.06
Horszowski 1983   58  0.7038  0.0049  0.0638  0.0633  0.0942  0.07
Indjic 2001   37  0.8256  0.0043  0.0639  0.0633  0.0844  0.07
Katin 1996   5  0.8913  0.017  0.104  0.5210  0.494  0.50
Kiepura 1999   57  0.7025  0.0048  0.0643  0.0617  0.3534  0.14
Korecka 1992   51  0.7632  0.0054  0.0546  0.0545  0.0652  0.05
Kushner 1990   54  0.7262  0.0035  0.0644  0.0638  0.0647  0.06
Lilamand 2001   63  0.6247  0.0063  0.0549  0.0548  0.0554  0.05
Luisada 1990   21  0.8526  0.0012  0.0714  0.3926  0.1918  0.27
Luisada 2008   19  0.8559  0.0022  0.0723  0.2437  0.0636  0.12
Lushtak 2004   2  0.9014  0.016  0.103  0.537  0.503  0.51
Malcuzynski 1951   62  0.6266  0.0051  0.0554  0.0544  0.0556  0.05
Malcuzynski 1961   52  0.7454  0.0027  0.0628  0.1850  0.0539  0.09
Magaloff 1977   43  0.8064  0.0057  0.0555  0.0554  0.0555  0.05
Magin 1975   46  0.7860  0.0052  0.0545  0.0556  0.0458  0.04
Meguri 1997   32  0.8328  0.0040  0.0642  0.0613  0.3631  0.15
Milkina 1970   42  0.8111  0.0250  0.0553  0.0532  0.1043  0.07
Mohovich 1999   7  0.8844  0.0013  0.0812  0.418  0.545  0.47
Nezu 2005   26  0.835  0.0317  0.0815  0.3617  0.3313  0.34
Ohlsson 1999   14  0.8610  0.0220  0.0921  0.3026  0.2022  0.24
Olejniczak 1990   13  0.8830  0.0024  0.0925  0.2131  0.1430  0.17
Osinska 1989   12  0.883  0.073  0.137  0.4713  0.329  0.39
Perlemuter 1992   28  0.8349  0.0033  0.0556  0.0523  0.1538  0.09
Poblocka 1999   11  0.8835  0.0014  0.0910  0.4419  0.2515  0.33
Rangell 2001   31  0.8357  0.0044  0.0641  0.0621  0.2137  0.11
Richter 1960   25  0.8431  0.0032  0.0532  0.1021  0.2828  0.17
Richter 1961   45  0.797  0.0231  0.0531  0.1020  0.3825  0.19
Rosen 1989   18  0.8527  0.0018  0.0922  0.2919  0.2420  0.26
Rubinstein 1939   24  0.8417  0.015  0.105  0.5113  0.387  0.44
Rubinstein 1952   39  0.8234  0.0016  0.1316  0.3539  0.0635  0.14
Rubinstein 1966   9  0.8850  0.0019  0.1120  0.3234  0.0732  0.15
Rudanovskaya 2007   8  0.8861  0.0039  0.0637  0.062  0.6026  0.19
Shebanova 2002   20  0.8529  0.0026  0.0729  0.1528  0.1633  0.15
Smith 1975   23  0.8455  0.0047  0.0636  0.0651  0.0550  0.05
Sztompka 1959   49  0.7846  0.0060  0.0362  0.0340  0.0659  0.04
Tanyel 1992   30  0.8336  0.0030  0.0630  0.1211  0.4524  0.23
Tsujii 2005   1  0.922  0.292  0.371  0.634  0.462  0.54
Uninsky 1959   27  0.8324  0.0036  0.0735  0.0749  0.0546  0.06
Vardi 1988   48  0.786  0.0225  0.0824  0.2210  0.4416  0.31
Wasowski 1980   41  0.814  0.039  0.1018  0.3530  0.1523  0.23
Zimerman 1975   16  0.8612  0.0129  0.0926  0.1911  0.3719  0.27
Random 1   66  -0.0945  0.0065  0.0265  0.0246  0.0463  0.03
Random 2   65  0.0042  0.0066  0.0166  0.0152  0.0365  0.02
Random 3   64  0.0848  0.0064  0.0363  0.0363  0.0266  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).