Czerny 1989

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   63  0.288  0.0232  0.0931  0.1831  0.1935  0.18
Ax 1995   54  0.4325  0.0044  0.0550  0.0525  0.3242  0.13
Bacha 1998   60  0.3659  0.0062  0.0362  0.0354  0.0466  0.03
Barbosa 1983   47  0.4716  0.0126  0.0824  0.3018  0.4624  0.37
BenOr 1989   20  0.5733  0.0012  0.1311  0.5218  0.4813  0.50
Biret 1990   3  0.6319  0.015  0.205  0.625  0.654  0.63
Brailowsky 1960   51  0.4635  0.0043  0.0552  0.0517  0.4438  0.15
Chiu 1999   48  0.4745  0.0045  0.0546  0.0547  0.0657  0.05
Clidat 1994   50  0.4741  0.0040  0.0837  0.0820  0.3636  0.17
Cohen 1997   62  0.3429  0.0057  0.0553  0.0518  0.5237  0.16
Cortot 1951   32  0.5151  0.0051  0.0641  0.0614  0.2943  0.13
Csalog 1996   1  0.701  0.561  0.561  0.742  0.602  0.67
Czerny 1989   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Ezaki 2006   17  0.5843  0.0011  0.1712  0.5211  0.559  0.53
Falvay 1989   7  0.6062  0.0013  0.1510  0.5423  0.2821  0.39
Fiorentino 1962   40  0.4938  0.0047  0.0551  0.0542  0.0753  0.06
Fliere 1977   39  0.4920  0.0148  0.0547  0.0545  0.0656  0.05
Fou 1978   6  0.617  0.038  0.147  0.584  0.636  0.60
Francois 1956   61  0.3644  0.0061  0.0361  0.0336  0.0862  0.05
Goldenweiser 1946   37  0.4949  0.0050  0.0555  0.0540  0.0655  0.05
Gornostaeva 1994   35  0.5046  0.0030  0.0830  0.196  0.6127  0.34
Groot 1988   5  0.612  0.074  0.286  0.596  0.597  0.59
Hatto 1993   10  0.6011  0.0118  0.1317  0.4621  0.4019  0.43
Hatto 1997   16  0.5830  0.0016  0.0916  0.4714  0.4716  0.47
Horszowski 1983   30  0.5123  0.0025  0.0826  0.2820  0.4823  0.37
Indjic 2001   15  0.5817  0.0119  0.1219  0.4417  0.4418  0.44
Katin 1996   13  0.5928  0.009  0.159  0.5615  0.4910  0.52
Kiepura 1999   41  0.4931  0.0036  0.0933  0.0910  0.5231  0.22
Korecka 1992   38  0.4954  0.0055  0.0554  0.0522  0.4241  0.14
Kushner 1990   42  0.485  0.0323  0.0827  0.268  0.4825  0.35
Lilamand 2001   9  0.604  0.046  0.264  0.652  0.751  0.70
Luisada 1990   19  0.5818  0.0121  0.0720  0.3521  0.3626  0.35
Luisada 2008   53  0.4439  0.0056  0.0642  0.0644  0.0651  0.06
Lushtak 2004   14  0.5813  0.0115  0.1213  0.5211  0.4614  0.49
Malcuzynski 1951   56  0.4060  0.0059  0.0460  0.0433  0.0854  0.06
Malcuzynski 1961   12  0.5924  0.007  0.1214  0.5110  0.5211  0.51
Magaloff 1977   49  0.4747  0.0054  0.0549  0.0550  0.0465  0.04
Magin 1975   23  0.5614  0.0114  0.1115  0.4812  0.4715  0.47
Meguri 1997   33  0.5136  0.0035  0.0836  0.0819  0.4433  0.19
Milkina 1970   26  0.5421  0.0129  0.0729  0.2016  0.4029  0.28
Mohovich 1999   2  0.636  0.032  0.312  0.665  0.653  0.65
Nezu 2005   29  0.5256  0.0053  0.0458  0.0442  0.0660  0.05
Ohlsson 1999   52  0.4532  0.0041  0.0544  0.0533  0.0948  0.07
Olejniczak 1990   46  0.4857  0.0052  0.0545  0.0528  0.1847  0.09
Osinska 1989   25  0.5655  0.0022  0.0721  0.3518  0.4620  0.40
Perlemuter 1992   58  0.3963  0.0063  0.0459  0.0444  0.0564  0.04
Poblocka 1999   22  0.5610  0.0233  0.0738  0.0742  0.0649  0.06
Rangell 2001   27  0.5448  0.0034  0.0934  0.0920  0.4732  0.21
Richter 1960   11  0.5912  0.0117  0.0818  0.4513  0.5512  0.50
Richter 1961   24  0.5622  0.0127  0.1022  0.349  0.5717  0.44
Rosen 1989   31  0.5142  0.0039  0.0739  0.0723  0.4734  0.18
Rubinstein 1939   43  0.4850  0.0042  0.0548  0.0534  0.0750  0.06
Rubinstein 1952   28  0.5227  0.0024  0.1025  0.3010  0.4722  0.38
Rubinstein 1966   4  0.6215  0.013  0.193  0.657  0.595  0.62
Rudanovskaya 2007   21  0.5753  0.0031  0.0828  0.2111  0.5028  0.32
Shebanova 2002   8  0.6026  0.0010  0.148  0.566  0.578  0.56
Smith 1975   55  0.4264  0.0058  0.0456  0.0446  0.0658  0.05
Sztompka 1959   45  0.4840  0.0038  0.0640  0.0619  0.3739  0.15
Tanyel 1992   57  0.4034  0.0049  0.0457  0.0435  0.1052  0.06
Tsujii 2005   18  0.5852  0.0028  0.1023  0.3138  0.0740  0.15
Uninsky 1959   44  0.4837  0.0046  0.0543  0.0551  0.0559  0.05
Vardi 1988   34  0.509  0.0237  0.0835  0.0828  0.1844  0.12
Wasowski 1980   59  0.3766  0.0060  0.0363  0.0346  0.0663  0.04
Zimerman 1975   36  0.503  0.0520  0.0832  0.1725  0.3330  0.24
Random 1   65  0.0565  0.0066  0.0166  0.0118  0.2161  0.05
Random 2   64  0.0958  0.0064  0.0264  0.0213  0.4345  0.09
Random 3   66  0.0361  0.0065  0.0265  0.0215  0.3746  0.09

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).