Csalog 1996

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   7  0.8615  0.017  0.245  0.5430  0.1911  0.32
Ax 1995   63  0.629  0.0360  0.0363  0.0363  0.0366  0.03
Bacha 1998   46  0.7462  0.0032  0.0630  0.1444  0.0537  0.08
Barbosa 1983   54  0.7037  0.0047  0.0460  0.0444  0.0649  0.05
BenOr 1989   21  0.8224  0.0014  0.0722  0.3429  0.1415  0.22
Biret 1990   16  0.8327  0.0019  0.0915  0.4446  0.0526  0.15
Brailowsky 1960   36  0.7953  0.0041  0.0648  0.0644  0.0546  0.05
Chiu 1999   38  0.7813  0.0131  0.0633  0.1315  0.2818  0.19
Clidat 1994   19  0.8351  0.009  0.1814  0.4614  0.505  0.48
Cohen 1997   52  0.7044  0.0051  0.0647  0.0618  0.4223  0.16
Cortot 1951   57  0.6831  0.0059  0.0553  0.0555  0.0461  0.04
Csalog 1996   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Czerny 1989   56  0.6828  0.0056  0.0641  0.0646  0.0547  0.05
Ezaki 2006   43  0.7525  0.0054  0.0643  0.0633  0.1035  0.08
Falvay 1989   30  0.8042  0.0033  0.0732  0.1354  0.0439  0.07
Fiorentino 1962   9  0.8641  0.0010  0.1011  0.4718  0.358  0.41
Fliere 1977   12  0.8417  0.0123  0.0724  0.2531  0.1219  0.17
Fou 1978   47  0.7420  0.0124  0.0727  0.2245  0.0631  0.11
Francois 1956   59  0.6638  0.0062  0.0462  0.0451  0.0463  0.04
Goldenweiser 1946   53  0.7036  0.0029  0.0629  0.1554  0.0534  0.09
Gornostaeva 1994   37  0.7854  0.0044  0.0739  0.0741  0.0543  0.06
Groot 1988   4  0.875  0.055  0.212  0.6110  0.404  0.49
Hatto 1993   33  0.7945  0.0040  0.0835  0.0853  0.0544  0.06
Hatto 1997   40  0.7846  0.0038  0.0642  0.0649  0.0642  0.06
Horszowski 1983   49  0.7316  0.0130  0.0731  0.1452  0.0536  0.08
Indjic 2001   39  0.7857  0.0039  0.0552  0.0550  0.0552  0.05
Katin 1996   8  0.8621  0.0111  0.077  0.5028  0.1812  0.30
Kiepura 1999   64  0.5565  0.0064  0.0555  0.0555  0.0454  0.04
Korecka 1992   61  0.6466  0.0061  0.0364  0.0355  0.0464  0.03
Kushner 1990   55  0.6960  0.0052  0.0738  0.0760  0.0448  0.05
Lilamand 2001   50  0.7326  0.0045  0.0646  0.0612  0.4322  0.16
Luisada 1990   17  0.8333  0.0017  0.0910  0.4849  0.0524  0.15
Luisada 2008   32  0.8040  0.0034  0.0645  0.0646  0.0550  0.05
Lushtak 2004   15  0.8411  0.0221  0.0820  0.3732  0.1117  0.20
Malcuzynski 1951   60  0.656  0.0546  0.0456  0.0449  0.0562  0.04
Malcuzynski 1961   44  0.7559  0.0022  0.0721  0.3543  0.0629  0.14
Magaloff 1977   28  0.8056  0.0043  0.0549  0.0539  0.0651  0.05
Magin 1975   42  0.7730  0.0048  0.0458  0.0451  0.0556  0.04
Meguri 1997   31  0.8052  0.0025  0.0925  0.2419  0.3313  0.28
Milkina 1970   48  0.7347  0.0053  0.0834  0.0841  0.0640  0.07
Mohovich 1999   14  0.8412  0.0215  0.089  0.4919  0.436  0.46
Nezu 2005   18  0.833  0.136  0.188  0.4914  0.407  0.44
Ohlsson 1999   10  0.858  0.0313  0.0813  0.4632  0.1214  0.23
Olejniczak 1990   2  0.884  0.122  0.154  0.565  0.522  0.54
Osinska 1989   23  0.8150  0.0036  0.0837  0.0863  0.0345  0.05
Perlemuter 1992   25  0.8161  0.0037  0.0836  0.0812  0.2528  0.14
Poblocka 1999   20  0.8210  0.0320  0.0919  0.3737  0.0721  0.16
Rangell 2001   41  0.7723  0.0050  0.0551  0.0527  0.1338  0.08
Richter 1960   51  0.7143  0.0058  0.0554  0.0558  0.0359  0.04
Richter 1961   62  0.6422  0.0163  0.0461  0.0449  0.0455  0.04
Rosen 1989   5  0.877  0.043  0.216  0.524  0.463  0.49
Rubinstein 1939   29  0.8032  0.0028  0.0628  0.1641  0.0633  0.10
Rubinstein 1952   34  0.7918  0.0127  0.0926  0.2450  0.0532  0.11
Rubinstein 1966   22  0.8229  0.0035  0.0740  0.0757  0.0541  0.06
Rudanovskaya 2007   27  0.8135  0.0042  0.0550  0.055  0.5520  0.17
Shebanova 2002   13  0.8419  0.018  0.1612  0.4722  0.2610  0.35
Smith 1975   3  0.871  0.191  0.183  0.571  0.601  0.58
Sztompka 1959   35  0.7949  0.0049  0.0457  0.0446  0.0558  0.04
Tanyel 1992   11  0.8458  0.0016  0.1117  0.3714  0.429  0.39
Tsujii 2005   6  0.8648  0.0012  0.0816  0.3737  0.0625  0.15
Uninsky 1959   26  0.8114  0.0126  0.0923  0.3049  0.0530  0.12
Vardi 1988   58  0.6734  0.0057  0.0459  0.0449  0.0557  0.04
Wasowski 1980   24  0.8155  0.0018  0.1018  0.3751  0.0527  0.14
Zimerman 1975   45  0.7439  0.0055  0.0644  0.0650  0.0453  0.05
Average   1  0.892  0.134  0.181  0.6842  0.0616  0.20
Random 1   67  -0.1764  0.0067  0.0167  0.0166  0.0267  0.01
Random 2   66  0.0367  0.0066  0.0266  0.0234  0.0960  0.04
Random 3   65  0.1363  0.0065  0.0365  0.0361  0.0365  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).