Hatto 1993

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   33  0.6931  0.0032  0.0827  0.086  0.5125  0.20
Bacha 1997   8  0.8215  0.008  0.2011  0.612  0.723  0.66
Barbosa 1983   25  0.7322  0.0022  0.1222  0.3013  0.4921  0.38
Biret 1990   27  0.7312  0.0026  0.0926  0.0910  0.4426  0.20
Block 1995   47  0.5442  0.0049  0.0733  0.0726  0.0842  0.07
Brailowsky 1960   26  0.7343  0.0028  0.0542  0.0523  0.2834  0.12
Chiu 1999   17  0.7617  0.0015  0.1316  0.4911  0.5015  0.49
Clidat 1994   22  0.7432  0.0025  0.0925  0.1726  0.1432  0.15
Cohen 1997   37  0.6728  0.0039  0.0639  0.0629  0.1040  0.08
Cortot 1951   48  0.526  0.0045  0.0548  0.0537  0.0746  0.06
Csalog 1996   20  0.7633  0.0018  0.1419  0.4318  0.3022  0.36
Czerny 1990   14  0.7823  0.007  0.1910  0.621  0.627  0.62
Ezaki 2006   9  0.825  0.0011  0.179  0.627  0.599  0.60
Ferenczy 1958   6  0.8420  0.009  0.206  0.6810  0.5111  0.59
Fliere 1977   15  0.7824  0.0014  0.1712  0.575  0.5112  0.54
Fou 1978   7  0.827  0.006  0.237  0.668  0.578  0.61
Francois 1956   46  0.569  0.0046  0.0549  0.0543  0.0650  0.05
Grinberg 1951   21  0.7514  0.0021  0.1321  0.304  0.5119  0.39
Hatto 1993   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Hatto 1997   2  0.972  0.142  0.902  0.962  0.952  0.95
Indjic 2001   1  0.981  0.821  0.801  0.972  0.971  0.97
Jonas 1947   42  0.6216  0.0044  0.0732  0.0727  0.0743  0.07
Kapell 1951   5  0.8435  0.005  0.203  0.706  0.615  0.65
Kiepura 1999   49  0.4844  0.0041  0.0730  0.0717  0.3231  0.15
Kushner 1989   12  0.8113  0.0010  0.298  0.655  0.5610  0.60
Luisada 1991   43  0.6229  0.0042  0.0729  0.0715  0.3627  0.16
Lushtak 2004   19  0.7636  0.0024  0.1124  0.2519  0.2524  0.25
Magaloff 1978   18  0.768  0.0019  0.1918  0.4412  0.4917  0.46
Meguri 1997   13  0.7911  0.0016  0.1314  0.5514  0.2720  0.39
Milkina 1970   11  0.8137  0.0012  0.1713  0.5610  0.4614  0.51
Mohovich 1999   3  0.8530  0.004  0.225  0.682  0.654  0.66
Niedzielski 1931   44  0.6238  0.0036  0.0634  0.0627  0.1039  0.08
Ohlsson 1999   4  0.8539  0.003  0.184  0.685  0.606  0.64
Olejniczak 1990   16  0.7810  0.0020  0.1020  0.3910  0.4418  0.41
Osinska 1989   39  0.654  0.0137  0.0640  0.0612  0.4128  0.16
Rangell 2001   24  0.7445  0.0023  0.1023  0.2819  0.3023  0.29
Richter 1976   31  0.6940  0.0035  0.0543  0.0518  0.2537  0.11
Rubinstein 1938   40  0.6446  0.0043  0.0638  0.0626  0.0945  0.07
Rubinstein 1952   28  0.7218  0.0038  0.0641  0.0610  0.4130  0.16
Rubinstein 1961   38  0.6647  0.0030  0.0544  0.0519  0.2936  0.12
Rubinstein 1966   36  0.6748  0.0029  0.0545  0.0515  0.3333  0.13
Shebanova 2002   35  0.6821  0.0031  0.0636  0.0642  0.0547  0.05
Smidowicz 1948   30  0.7149  0.0034  0.0637  0.0626  0.0944  0.07
Smidowicz 1948b   32  0.6934  0.0033  0.0731  0.0727  0.0941  0.08
Smith 1975   23  0.7450  0.0017  0.1517  0.447  0.5316  0.48
Sofronitsky 1949   41  0.6325  0.0047  0.0546  0.0548  0.0548  0.05
Sztompka 1959   45  0.5719  0.0048  0.0547  0.0540  0.0649  0.05
Tomsic 1995   34  0.6841  0.0027  0.0828  0.0818  0.3229  0.16
Uninsky 1971   10  0.823  0.0113  0.1715  0.5214  0.5213  0.52
Wasowski 1980   29  0.7126  0.0040  0.0635  0.0627  0.1338  0.09
Random 1   51  0.0327  0.0051  0.0350  0.0333  0.0551  0.04
Random 2   52  -0.0151  0.0052  0.0252  0.0245  0.0452  0.03
Random 3   50  0.0752  0.0050  0.0351  0.033  0.4835  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).