Groot 1988

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   63  0.2056  0.0042  0.0550  0.0542  0.0658  0.05
Ax 1995   62  0.3224  0.0163  0.0459  0.0459  0.0365  0.03
Bacha 1998   59  0.4426  0.0059  0.0457  0.0452  0.0562  0.04
Barbosa 1983   61  0.3850  0.0039  0.0836  0.0839  0.0849  0.08
BenOr 1989   16  0.6114  0.0213  0.1511  0.509  0.5713  0.53
Biret 1990   9  0.6331  0.009  0.179  0.568  0.627  0.59
Brailowsky 1960   54  0.4644  0.0055  0.0460  0.0429  0.2247  0.09
Chiu 1999   38  0.5536  0.0038  0.0834  0.0822  0.2935  0.15
Clidat 1994   37  0.5534  0.0027  0.0929  0.1912  0.4828  0.30
Cohen 1997   56  0.4537  0.0058  0.0545  0.0513  0.5833  0.17
Cortot 1951   39  0.5452  0.0054  0.0552  0.0532  0.1053  0.07
Csalog 1996   3  0.664  0.106  0.198  0.5617  0.4814  0.52
Czerny 1989   15  0.612  0.134  0.226  0.596  0.596  0.59
Ezaki 2006   47  0.4865  0.0048  0.0458  0.0447  0.0560  0.04
Falvay 1989   2  0.665  0.082  0.141  0.674  0.575  0.62
Fiorentino 1962   11  0.6215  0.0115  0.0720  0.3917  0.4320  0.41
Fliere 1977   36  0.5551  0.0044  0.0544  0.0525  0.1944  0.10
Fou 1978   35  0.5520  0.0136  0.0837  0.0830  0.1841  0.12
Francois 1956   55  0.4662  0.0060  0.0361  0.0340  0.0759  0.05
Goldenweiser 1946   23  0.6028  0.0022  0.1015  0.468  0.5317  0.49
Gornostaeva 1994   60  0.4063  0.0056  0.0553  0.0524  0.3240  0.13
Groot 1988   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Hatto 1993   17  0.6141  0.0017  0.0914  0.4712  0.5018  0.48
Hatto 1997   29  0.5766  0.0033  0.0835  0.0827  0.2438  0.14
Horszowski 1983   43  0.5339  0.0026  0.1425  0.2921  0.4426  0.36
Indjic 2001   19  0.6042  0.0023  0.0919  0.4020  0.4319  0.41
Katin 1996   1  0.681  0.171  0.162  0.651  0.671  0.66
Kiepura 1999   34  0.5519  0.0146  0.0640  0.0622  0.3437  0.14
Korecka 1992   51  0.4758  0.0062  0.0363  0.0333  0.0955  0.05
Kushner 1990   58  0.4460  0.0057  0.0548  0.0549  0.0557  0.05
Lilamand 2001   24  0.6032  0.0011  0.1310  0.5114  0.609  0.55
Luisada 1990   41  0.5438  0.0020  0.0821  0.3922  0.3625  0.37
Luisada 2008   52  0.4645  0.0047  0.0546  0.0530  0.1250  0.08
Lushtak 2004   8  0.6313  0.0212  0.1212  0.505  0.5911  0.54
Malcuzynski 1951   48  0.4830  0.0051  0.0547  0.0516  0.4536  0.15
Malcuzynski 1961   7  0.6411  0.028  0.117  0.571  0.598  0.58
Magaloff 1977   26  0.5922  0.0118  0.1113  0.486  0.6110  0.54
Magin 1975   22  0.6017  0.0119  0.0823  0.3221  0.3627  0.34
Meguri 1997   18  0.619  0.0231  0.0831  0.1713  0.4930  0.29
Milkina 1970   27  0.5927  0.0034  0.0739  0.0723  0.1843  0.11
Mohovich 1999   4  0.6510  0.027  0.264  0.624  0.674  0.64
Nezu 2005   32  0.5649  0.0045  0.0641  0.0633  0.0951  0.07
Ohlsson 1999   44  0.4929  0.0053  0.0551  0.0548  0.0556  0.05
Olejniczak 1990   25  0.5940  0.0024  0.0924  0.307  0.5124  0.39
Osinska 1989   14  0.6154  0.0030  0.0730  0.1725  0.3031  0.23
Perlemuter 1992   12  0.6216  0.0129  0.0728  0.191  0.7922  0.39
Poblocka 1999   31  0.5647  0.0035  0.0738  0.0731  0.1545  0.10
Rangell 2001   42  0.5459  0.0043  0.0543  0.0529  0.3739  0.14
Richter 1960   6  0.646  0.075  0.195  0.602  0.713  0.65
Richter 1961   40  0.5418  0.0137  0.0933  0.0919  0.4532  0.20
Rosen 1989   21  0.6021  0.0132  0.0732  0.1413  0.6329  0.30
Rubinstein 1939   53  0.4657  0.0052  0.0554  0.0551  0.0461  0.04
Rubinstein 1952   30  0.5612  0.0214  0.0916  0.467  0.5615  0.51
Rubinstein 1966   5  0.643  0.113  0.173  0.642  0.662  0.65
Rudanovskaya 2007   10  0.6325  0.0116  0.0817  0.454  0.6312  0.53
Shebanova 2002   13  0.617  0.0310  0.1218  0.4510  0.5516  0.50
Smith 1975   33  0.568  0.0225  0.1026  0.289  0.5323  0.39
Sztompka 1959   57  0.4564  0.0061  0.0362  0.0358  0.0563  0.04
Tanyel 1992   50  0.4735  0.0049  0.0555  0.0523  0.2246  0.10
Tsujii 2005   20  0.6053  0.0028  0.0727  0.2040  0.0742  0.12
Uninsky 1959   28  0.5743  0.0041  0.0549  0.0529  0.1648  0.09
Vardi 1988   45  0.4923  0.0121  0.0822  0.3418  0.4621  0.40
Wasowski 1980   49  0.4833  0.0050  0.0556  0.0518  0.4834  0.15
Zimerman 1975   46  0.4848  0.0040  0.0642  0.0634  0.0952  0.07
Random 1   64  0.0361  0.0065  0.0265  0.0249  0.0464  0.03
Random 2   65  0.0046  0.0066  0.0166  0.0142  0.0466  0.02
Random 3   66  -0.0155  0.0064  0.0264  0.0223  0.1754  0.06

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).