Biret 1990

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   10  0.898  0.0112  0.158  0.537  0.4513  0.49
Ax 1995   51  0.7861  0.0056  0.0540  0.0514  0.3146  0.12
Bacha 1998   13  0.883  0.057  0.169  0.522  0.656  0.58
Barbosa 1983   61  0.7238  0.0058  0.0639  0.0636  0.0854  0.07
BenOr 1989   39  0.8350  0.0049  0.0552  0.0539  0.0660  0.05
Biret 1990   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Brailowsky 1960   23  0.8640  0.0030  0.0629  0.1410  0.4228  0.24
Chiu 1999   43  0.8263  0.0054  0.0459  0.0431  0.1056  0.06
Clidat 1994   29  0.8517  0.0123  0.0718  0.335  0.6215  0.45
Cohen 1997   56  0.7647  0.0055  0.0460  0.044  0.5738  0.15
Cortot 1951   55  0.7755  0.0051  0.0549  0.056  0.4439  0.15
Csalog 1996   37  0.8324  0.0041  0.0546  0.0515  0.4435  0.15
Czerny 1989   53  0.7862  0.0052  0.0462  0.0427  0.2750  0.10
Ezaki 2006   58  0.7649  0.0063  0.0464  0.0448  0.0561  0.04
Falvay 1989   8  0.9020  0.0111  0.1016  0.4512  0.4217  0.43
Fiorentino 1962   9  0.909  0.019  0.1210  0.513  0.629  0.56
Fliere 1977   11  0.8942  0.0020  0.0819  0.328  0.4718  0.39
Fou 1978   44  0.8218  0.0115  0.0922  0.2910  0.4023  0.34
Francois 1956   59  0.7566  0.0061  0.0550  0.0534  0.0955  0.07
Goldenweiser 1946   62  0.6751  0.0053  0.0461  0.0441  0.0758  0.05
Gornostaeva 1994   32  0.8423  0.0134  0.0457  0.048  0.4743  0.14
Groot 1988   3  0.935  0.036  0.204  0.622  0.594  0.60
Hatto 1993   27  0.8553  0.0032  0.0531  0.1126  0.2733  0.17
Hatto 1997   34  0.8464  0.0037  0.0553  0.0527  0.2548  0.11
Horszowski 1983   52  0.7828  0.0050  0.0543  0.0531  0.1352  0.08
Indjic 2001   31  0.8452  0.0038  0.0637  0.0625  0.2545  0.12
Katin 1996   18  0.8814  0.0125  0.0823  0.2812  0.4820  0.37
Kiepura 1999   60  0.7433  0.0057  0.0638  0.068  0.4631  0.17
Korecka 1992   46  0.8227  0.0044  0.0734  0.0717  0.3734  0.16
Kushner 1990   50  0.7837  0.0029  0.0730  0.1413  0.3830  0.23
Lilamand 2001   64  0.5956  0.0064  0.0463  0.0455  0.0462  0.04
Luisada 1990   6  0.9135  0.005  0.193  0.623  0.593  0.60
Luisada 2008   5  0.9110  0.014  0.166  0.574  0.615  0.59
Lushtak 2004   17  0.8822  0.0122  0.0828  0.1514  0.4029  0.24
Malcuzynski 1951   63  0.6457  0.0047  0.0458  0.0455  0.0464  0.04
Malcuzynski 1961   47  0.8146  0.0024  0.0724  0.2822  0.2725  0.27
Magaloff 1977   25  0.8641  0.0033  0.0433  0.0848  0.0557  0.06
Magin 1975   28  0.8531  0.0042  0.0547  0.0530  0.2149  0.10
Meguri 1997   42  0.8254  0.0045  0.0544  0.059  0.4241  0.14
Milkina 1970   40  0.8329  0.0043  0.0636  0.0621  0.2444  0.12
Mohovich 1999   16  0.8826  0.0013  0.1214  0.474  0.6310  0.54
Nezu 2005   12  0.8944  0.008  0.1611  0.504  0.5512  0.52
Ohlsson 1999   19  0.8721  0.0126  0.1120  0.3119  0.4022  0.35
Olejniczak 1990   15  0.8819  0.0116  0.1021  0.3011  0.4621  0.37
Osinska 1989   20  0.8734  0.0014  0.1413  0.496  0.3816  0.43
Perlemuter 1992   54  0.776  0.0231  0.0532  0.0927  0.1347  0.11
Poblocka 1999   4  0.9348  0.003  0.215  0.584  0.567  0.57
Rangell 2001   57  0.7643  0.0062  0.0455  0.0461  0.0366  0.03
Richter 1960   30  0.8539  0.0036  0.0542  0.059  0.4536  0.15
Richter 1961   38  0.837  0.0239  0.0541  0.053  0.5832  0.17
Rosen 1989   26  0.8532  0.0028  0.0827  0.2110  0.3626  0.27
Rubinstein 1939   24  0.8611  0.0119  0.157  0.535  0.608  0.56
Rubinstein 1952   41  0.8316  0.0127  0.1025  0.2824  0.2227  0.25
Rubinstein 1966   2  0.932  0.272  0.472  0.702  0.682  0.69
Rudanovskaya 2007   49  0.7930  0.0060  0.0548  0.0513  0.3942  0.14
Shebanova 2002   36  0.8436  0.0040  0.0635  0.0632  0.1253  0.08
Smith 1975   35  0.8460  0.0048  0.0456  0.0428  0.2051  0.09
Sztompka 1959   48  0.8058  0.0059  0.0551  0.0547  0.0559  0.05
Tanyel 1992   33  0.8445  0.0046  0.0545  0.059  0.4837  0.15
Tsujii 2005   7  0.904  0.0310  0.1112  0.502  0.5411  0.52
Uninsky 1959   21  0.8712  0.0117  0.1017  0.3315  0.4119  0.37
Vardi 1988   45  0.8215  0.0135  0.0454  0.045  0.5040  0.14
Wasowski 1980   22  0.8625  0.0018  0.1315  0.467  0.4814  0.47
Zimerman 1975   14  0.8813  0.0121  0.1026  0.225  0.4924  0.33
Average   1  0.951  0.391  0.381  0.783  0.631  0.70
Random 1   67  -0.1167  0.0066  0.0266  0.0231  0.0863  0.04
Random 2   66  0.0265  0.0067  0.0167  0.0140  0.0567  0.02
Random 3   65  0.1559  0.0065  0.0365  0.0343  0.0465  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).