Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   15  0.0420  0.0116  0.0717  0.3864  0.0320  0.11
Ashkenazy 1981   38  0.0256  0.0043  0.0636  0.0663  0.0342  0.04
Beliavsky 2004   61  -0.0164  0.0046  0.0444  0.0464  0.0351  0.03
BenOr 1989   59  0.0059  0.0058  0.0263  0.0264  0.0364  0.02
Biret 1990   39  0.0232  0.0051  0.0356  0.0364  0.0354  0.03
Blet 2003   10  0.0431  0.0018  0.0711  0.4361  0.046  0.13
Block 1995   17  0.0311  0.0213  0.0812  0.4264  0.047  0.13
Brailowsky 1960   62  -0.0149  0.0064  0.0265  0.0264  0.0256  0.02
Chiu 1999   33  0.029  0.0310  0.0824  0.3064  0.0230  0.08
Clidat 1994   57  0.0040  0.0055  0.0355  0.0365  0.0261  0.02
Cohen 1997   4  0.051  0.161  0.162  0.5364  0.038  0.13
Coop 1987   37  0.0247  0.0042  0.0537  0.0564  0.0337  0.04
Cortot 1951   54  0.0012  0.0149  0.0354  0.0365  0.0265  0.02
Czerny 1949   60  0.0045  0.0044  0.0542  0.0564  0.0340  0.04
Czerny 1949b   53  0.0055  0.0050  0.0353  0.0364  0.0349  0.03
Ezaki 2006   55  0.0062  0.0061  0.0262  0.0264  0.0355  0.02
Falvay 1989   31  0.0251  0.0041  0.0446  0.0464  0.0346  0.03
Ferenczy 1958   63  -0.0142  0.0065  0.0258  0.0264  0.0260  0.02
Fiorentino 1962   6  0.0558  0.0015  0.083  0.4764  0.0313  0.12
Fliere 1977   40  0.0161  0.0045  0.0540  0.0564  0.0335  0.04
Fou 1978   51  0.0063  0.0063  0.0357  0.0363  0.0350  0.03
Francois 1956   66  -0.0257  0.0056  0.0259  0.0265  0.0266  0.02
Hatto 1997   13  0.0425  0.0120  0.084  0.4764  0.0310  0.12
Horowitz 1971   5  0.0510  0.029  0.1114  0.3957  0.0414  0.12
Horowitz 1985   2  0.062  0.143  0.1613  0.4164  0.044  0.13
Indjic 2001   22  0.0339  0.0021  0.097  0.4464  0.0321  0.11
Kapell 1951   48  0.0143  0.0057  0.0264  0.0264  0.0358  0.02
Kiepura 1999   47  0.0118  0.0122  0.0726  0.2764  0.0327  0.09
Kilenyi 1937   35  0.0230  0.0034  0.0633  0.0663  0.0433  0.05
Kissin 1993   8  0.0421  0.0130  0.0828  0.2462  0.0423  0.10
Kitain 1937   12  0.048  0.038  0.1015  0.3853  0.0412  0.12
Kushner 1990   24  0.0319  0.0131  0.1031  0.2063  0.0331  0.08
Levy 1951   44  0.0137  0.0048  0.0347  0.0364  0.0345  0.03
Luisada 1990   14  0.044  0.104  0.135  0.4663  0.043  0.14
Lushtak 2004   27  0.0215  0.0123  0.0820  0.3363  0.0325  0.10
Lympany 1968   43  0.0134  0.0039  0.0538  0.0564  0.0334  0.04
Magaloff 1977   45  0.0129  0.0040  0.0445  0.0464  0.0352  0.03
Magaloff 1977b   42  0.0135  0.0035  0.0634  0.0664  0.0341  0.04
Magin 1975   30  0.0252  0.0038  0.0539  0.0564  0.0436  0.04
Milkina 1970   16  0.0324  0.0114  0.076  0.4563  0.045  0.13
Mohovich 1999   23  0.037  0.057  0.0910  0.4363  0.0322  0.11
Nadelmann 1956   34  0.0223  0.0124  0.0621  0.3264  0.0324  0.10
Ohlsson 1999   3  0.053  0.112  0.151  0.5860  0.042  0.15
Olejniczac 1990   7  0.0554  0.0019  0.079  0.4364  0.0319  0.11
Olejniczak 1991   20  0.0338  0.0025  0.0718  0.3764  0.0316  0.11
Osinska 1989   49  0.0127  0.0053  0.0350  0.0365  0.0343  0.03
Paderewski 1912   52  0.0050  0.0054  0.0349  0.0363  0.0353  0.03
Perahia 1994   46  0.0133  0.0026  0.0730  0.2164  0.0428  0.09
Perlemuter 1986   36  0.026  0.065  0.138  0.4364  0.0318  0.11
Poblocka 1999   58  0.0065  0.0062  0.0352  0.0364  0.0344  0.03
Rangell 2001   18  0.0344  0.0028  0.0927  0.2563  0.0426  0.10
Risler 1920   26  0.0313  0.0127  0.0729  0.2364  0.0329  0.08
Rosen 1989   41  0.0128  0.0047  0.0348  0.0364  0.0263  0.02
Rubinstein 1939   29  0.0248  0.0037  0.0443  0.0464  0.0248  0.03
Rubinstein 1952   19  0.0336  0.0032  0.0932  0.1864  0.0332  0.07
Rubinstein 1966   25  0.0353  0.0036  0.0541  0.0564  0.0338  0.04
Rummel 1943   65  -0.0146  0.0060  0.0261  0.0265  0.0362  0.02
Shebanova 2002   11  0.0417  0.0111  0.0816  0.3864  0.0411  0.12
Smith 1975   50  0.0041  0.0052  0.0351  0.0364  0.0347  0.03
Szpilman 1948   9  0.0414  0.0112  0.0725  0.2864  0.0415  0.11
Uninsky 1971   56  0.0060  0.0059  0.0260  0.0265  0.0259  0.02
Wasowski 1980   32  0.0222  0.0117  0.0819  0.3764  0.049  0.12
Weissenberg 1971   21  0.0326  0.0029  0.0923  0.3163  0.0417  0.11
Average   28  0.0266  0.0033  0.0635  0.0664  0.0339  0.04
Random 1    64  -0.0116  0.0166  0.0166  0.0139  0.0557  0.02
Random 2   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Random 3   1  0.085  0.076  0.1022  0.321  0.741  0.49

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).