Csalog 1996

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   64  0.263  0.0135  0.0837  0.0826  0.3640  0.17
Ax 1995   53  0.5024  0.0036  0.0934  0.0911  0.5934  0.23
Bacha 1998   57  0.4816  0.0061  0.0360  0.0347  0.0565  0.04
Barbosa 1983   56  0.494  0.0123  0.1025  0.342  0.6723  0.48
BenOr 1989   8  0.679  0.015  0.216  0.572  0.706  0.63
Biret 1990   11  0.6719  0.0010  0.119  0.532  0.757  0.63
Brailowsky 1960   62  0.4562  0.0062  0.0453  0.0441  0.0761  0.05
Chiu 1999   33  0.6050  0.0029  0.0930  0.2710  0.5029  0.37
Clidat 1994   47  0.5441  0.0034  0.0738  0.0714  0.4838  0.18
Cohen 1997   63  0.3057  0.0064  0.0265  0.0246  0.0466  0.03
Cortot 1951   34  0.5915  0.0053  0.0459  0.0419  0.2455  0.10
Csalog 1996   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Czerny 1989   4  0.7010  0.012  0.393  0.602  0.743  0.67
Ezaki 2006   21  0.6453  0.0011  0.0919  0.472  0.6712  0.56
Falvay 1989   2  0.7354  0.003  0.302  0.642  0.772  0.70
Fiorentino 1962   41  0.5758  0.0048  0.0551  0.0532  0.1459  0.08
Fliere 1977   45  0.5627  0.0056  0.0552  0.0532  0.1358  0.08
Fou 1978   40  0.5813  0.0147  0.0455  0.0440  0.0762  0.05
Francois 1956   54  0.5064  0.0051  0.0456  0.0418  0.5249  0.14
Goldenweiser 1946   19  0.6534  0.0021  0.2115  0.494  0.6413  0.56
Gornostaeva 1994   59  0.4849  0.0049  0.0549  0.0513  0.5244  0.16
Groot 1988   18  0.6625  0.0013  0.1118  0.489  0.5621  0.52
Hatto 1993   12  0.6637  0.0026  0.1024  0.368  0.5925  0.46
Hatto 1997   3  0.7014  0.0012  0.1110  0.534  0.718  0.61
Horszowski 1983   46  0.5555  0.0022  0.1227  0.3018  0.5228  0.39
Indjic 2001   6  0.6842  0.0025  0.1421  0.448  0.6120  0.52
Katin 1996   16  0.6643  0.0017  0.1214  0.499  0.5917  0.54
Kiepura 1999   60  0.4760  0.0063  0.0646  0.0635  0.0960  0.07
Korecka 1992   50  0.5366  0.0060  0.0362  0.0336  0.0763  0.05
Kushner 1990   55  0.4917  0.0045  0.0741  0.0724  0.2947  0.14
Lilamand 2001   9  0.6712  0.017  0.105  0.572  0.794  0.67
Luisada 1990   27  0.6238  0.0028  0.0726  0.3116  0.5127  0.40
Luisada 2008   52  0.5223  0.0043  0.0642  0.0620  0.3548  0.14
Lushtak 2004   31  0.6018  0.0032  0.0733  0.1417  0.4133  0.24
Malcuzynski 1951   44  0.5659  0.0040  0.0548  0.056  0.5941  0.17
Malcuzynski 1961   15  0.6620  0.006  0.147  0.554  0.5814  0.56
Magaloff 1977   36  0.5929  0.0041  0.0645  0.0611  0.4739  0.17
Magin 1975   29  0.6135  0.0030  0.1428  0.3015  0.4630  0.37
Meguri 1997   32  0.6033  0.0054  0.0454  0.0425  0.3054  0.11
Milkina 1970   10  0.6730  0.0016  0.118  0.547  0.6510  0.59
Mohovich 1999   17  0.6622  0.009  0.1013  0.517  0.6215  0.56
Nezu 2005   14  0.6645  0.0033  0.0732  0.157  0.5632  0.29
Ohlsson 1999   28  0.615  0.0119  0.1116  0.498  0.5918  0.54
Olejniczak 1990   42  0.5765  0.0055  0.0547  0.0520  0.2953  0.12
Osinska 1989   24  0.6426  0.0037  0.0835  0.0821  0.4137  0.18
Perlemuter 1992   48  0.5367  0.0059  0.0363  0.0311  0.5050  0.12
Poblocka 1999   5  0.6940  0.0015  0.1317  0.492  0.709  0.59
Rangell 2001   30  0.6063  0.0044  0.0836  0.0817  0.5435  0.21
Richter 1960   26  0.6239  0.0031  0.0831  0.1717  0.5031  0.29
Richter 1961   49  0.5347  0.0057  0.0643  0.0630  0.2451  0.12
Rosen 1989   37  0.5951  0.0046  0.0457  0.0421  0.5346  0.15
Rubinstein 1939   43  0.5728  0.0042  0.0644  0.0620  0.3745  0.15
Rubinstein 1952   35  0.5911  0.0118  0.0922  0.444  0.6319  0.53
Rubinstein 1966   22  0.6444  0.0014  0.1320  0.4410  0.5622  0.50
Rudanovskaya 2007   25  0.6456  0.0039  0.0740  0.0719  0.3742  0.16
Shebanova 2002   23  0.648  0.014  0.1511  0.524  0.6211  0.57
Smith 1975   13  0.666  0.018  0.094  0.583  0.725  0.65
Sztompka 1959   38  0.5936  0.0038  0.0739  0.0713  0.5236  0.19
Tanyel 1992   51  0.5221  0.0050  0.0550  0.0518  0.5243  0.16
Tsujii 2005   7  0.6846  0.0024  0.1023  0.448  0.5324  0.48
Uninsky 1959   20  0.657  0.0120  0.1412  0.514  0.6016  0.55
Vardi 1988   39  0.582  0.0227  0.1029  0.295  0.6626  0.44
Wasowski 1980   61  0.4732  0.0058  0.0361  0.0324  0.2956  0.09
Zimerman 1975   58  0.4831  0.0052  0.0458  0.0440  0.0764  0.05
Average   1  0.831  0.821  0.811  0.912  0.721  0.81
Random 1   66  0.0161  0.0067  0.0167  0.0145  0.0467  0.02
Random 2   65  0.1048  0.0065  0.0364  0.039  0.4652  0.12
Random 3   67  0.0152  0.0066  0.0266  0.0210  0.4457  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).