Rubinstein 1966

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   17  0.887  0.0216  0.0910  0.4110  0.4215  0.41
Ax 1995   44  0.8114  0.0131  0.0530  0.148  0.4630  0.25
Bacha 1998   29  0.8517  0.0121  0.0814  0.335  0.5214  0.41
Barbosa 1983   53  0.7952  0.0047  0.0547  0.056  0.5837  0.17
BenOr 1989   34  0.848  0.0138  0.0554  0.0518  0.3052  0.12
Biret 1990   2  0.933  0.052  0.362  0.682  0.703  0.69
Brailowsky 1960   38  0.8458  0.0024  0.0625  0.177  0.4328  0.27
Chiu 1999   49  0.8046  0.0058  0.0642  0.0635  0.0661  0.06
Clidat 1994   33  0.846  0.0225  0.0624  0.184  0.6519  0.34
Cohen 1997   63  0.6866  0.0064  0.0460  0.0436  0.0864  0.06
Cortot 1951   43  0.8259  0.0048  0.0552  0.053  0.4742  0.15
Csalog 1996   42  0.8228  0.0049  0.0557  0.0540  0.0763  0.06
Czerny 1989   37  0.8449  0.0032  0.0629  0.154  0.5524  0.29
Ezaki 2006   58  0.7631  0.0063  0.0462  0.0434  0.0960  0.06
Falvay 1989   14  0.8810  0.0110  0.1117  0.3214  0.3918  0.35
Fiorentino 1962   15  0.8847  0.0046  0.0735  0.0721  0.3241  0.15
Fliere 1977   13  0.8825  0.0022  0.0821  0.2310  0.4620  0.33
Fou 1978   59  0.7527  0.0033  0.0632  0.1227  0.2239  0.16
Francois 1956   56  0.7832  0.0055  0.0556  0.0511  0.3847  0.14
Goldenweiser 1946   60  0.7522  0.0052  0.0740  0.0718  0.3043  0.14
Gornostaeva 1994   26  0.8663  0.0037  0.0550  0.055  0.5638  0.17
Groot 1988   5  0.9123  0.009  0.118  0.496  0.549  0.51
Hatto 1993   31  0.8554  0.0035  0.0549  0.0520  0.3153  0.12
Hatto 1997   40  0.8336  0.0041  0.0737  0.0719  0.3046  0.14
Horszowski 1983   45  0.8112  0.0128  0.0728  0.152  0.4727  0.27
Indjic 2001   36  0.8426  0.0040  0.0546  0.0521  0.3050  0.12
Katin 1996   24  0.8629  0.0045  0.0934  0.0917  0.4034  0.19
Kiepura 1999   62  0.7338  0.0056  0.0458  0.0411  0.4348  0.13
Korecka 1992   27  0.8640  0.0027  0.0626  0.178  0.4725  0.28
Kushner 1990   52  0.8056  0.0019  0.0823  0.189  0.4923  0.30
Lilamand 2001   64  0.6241  0.0061  0.0365  0.0346  0.0566  0.04
Luisada 1990   11  0.895  0.027  0.206  0.535  0.527  0.52
Luisada 2008   9  0.8950  0.008  0.147  0.505  0.528  0.51
Lushtak 2004   21  0.8751  0.0043  0.0545  0.0517  0.3349  0.13
Malcuzynski 1951   61  0.7321  0.0012  0.0722  0.196  0.4026  0.28
Malcuzynski 1961   32  0.8543  0.0013  0.0715  0.338  0.4616  0.39
Magaloff 1977   22  0.8644  0.0036  0.0553  0.059  0.4440  0.15
Magin 1975   19  0.8724  0.0015  0.0813  0.367  0.5311  0.44
Meguri 1997   55  0.7961  0.0059  0.0643  0.0635  0.0858  0.07
Milkina 1970   25  0.8633  0.0034  0.0544  0.0512  0.4145  0.14
Mohovich 1999   10  0.8919  0.0018  0.0816  0.323  0.6410  0.45
Nezu 2005   35  0.8418  0.0130  0.0527  0.1613  0.4129  0.26
Ohlsson 1999   12  0.889  0.0111  0.0818  0.2618  0.4221  0.33
Olejniczak 1990   16  0.8862  0.0029  0.0631  0.1216  0.3831  0.21
Osinska 1989   4  0.9139  0.006  0.205  0.552  0.565  0.55
Perlemuter 1992   46  0.8113  0.0150  0.0551  0.0517  0.2354  0.11
Poblocka 1999   3  0.9211  0.014  0.194  0.603  0.594  0.59
Rangell 2001   57  0.7757  0.0062  0.0459  0.0458  0.0367  0.03
Richter 1960   18  0.8716  0.0120  0.0720  0.242  0.5417  0.36
Richter 1961   47  0.8134  0.0053  0.0641  0.064  0.5832  0.19
Rosen 1989   39  0.8442  0.0026  0.0533  0.1218  0.2736  0.18
Rubinstein 1939   6  0.902  0.163  0.263  0.641  0.762  0.70
Rubinstein 1952   8  0.894  0.035  0.169  0.452  0.626  0.53
Rubinstein 1966   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Rudanovskaya 2007   54  0.7960  0.0060  0.0461  0.0422  0.3055  0.11
Shebanova 2002   30  0.8515  0.0139  0.0555  0.0523  0.2256  0.10
Smith 1975   41  0.8330  0.0051  0.0739  0.0720  0.3044  0.14
Sztompka 1959   51  0.8053  0.0057  0.0548  0.0537  0.0762  0.06
Tanyel 1992   48  0.8064  0.0054  0.0363  0.0323  0.2757  0.09
Tsujii 2005   7  0.9037  0.0017  0.1211  0.394  0.4812  0.43
Uninsky 1959   23  0.8635  0.0023  0.0619  0.2414  0.4322  0.32
Vardi 1988   50  0.8055  0.0044  0.0738  0.074  0.5033  0.19
Wasowski 1980   20  0.8720  0.0014  0.1012  0.379  0.4713  0.42
Zimerman 1975   28  0.8645  0.0042  0.0736  0.074  0.4935  0.19
Average   1  0.951  0.521  0.511  0.782  0.661  0.72
Random 1   67  -0.0848  0.0066  0.0266  0.0213  0.2559  0.07
Random 2   66  0.0967  0.0067  0.0167  0.0121  0.2965  0.05
Random 3   65  0.1865  0.0065  0.0364  0.033  0.4851  0.12

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).