Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   20  0.5325  0.009  0.166  0.5762  0.0415  0.15
Ax 1995   43  0.477  0.0421  0.0827  0.1763  0.0337  0.07
Bacha 1998   28  0.5035  0.0039  0.0838  0.0859  0.0539  0.06
Barbosa 1983   61  0.4014  0.0155  0.0642  0.0654  0.0640  0.06
BenOr 1989   31  0.5045  0.0027  0.0729  0.1760  0.0432  0.08
Biret 1990   15  0.549  0.0314  0.1310  0.5159  0.0513  0.16
Brailowsky 1960   42  0.4857  0.0050  0.0549  0.0562  0.0460  0.04
Chiu 1999   25  0.5143  0.0044  0.0551  0.0559  0.0546  0.05
Clidat 1994   33  0.5019  0.0129  0.0728  0.1761  0.0431  0.08
Cohen 1997   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Cortot 1951   57  0.4358  0.0060  0.0460  0.0450  0.0464  0.04
Csalog 1996   1  0.593  0.064  0.203  0.6463  0.049  0.16
Czerny 1989   52  0.4527  0.0047  0.0457  0.0444  0.0649  0.05
Ezaki 2006   26  0.5151  0.0040  0.0835  0.0849  0.0633  0.07
Falvay 1989   17  0.5424  0.0010  0.158  0.5353  0.063  0.18
Fiorentino 1962   8  0.5611  0.0215  0.1311  0.4962  0.0417  0.14
Fliere 1977   18  0.5461  0.0036  0.0934  0.0945  0.0634  0.07
Fou 1978   27  0.5121  0.0020  0.1020  0.3161  0.0423  0.11
Francois 1956   29  0.5012  0.0138  0.0837  0.0863  0.0444  0.06
Goldenweiser 1946   63  0.3264  0.0063  0.0550  0.0552  0.0545  0.05
Gornostaeva 1994   49  0.4748  0.0042  0.0552  0.0547  0.0653  0.05
Groot 1988   22  0.5247  0.0032  0.0732  0.1351  0.0628  0.09
Hatto 1993   54  0.4556  0.0046  0.0456  0.0453  0.0654  0.05
Hatto 1997   56  0.4463  0.0054  0.0741  0.0756  0.0642  0.06
Horszowski 1983   60  0.4259  0.0059  0.0362  0.0346  0.0557  0.04
Indjic 2001   55  0.4544  0.0052  0.0547  0.0554  0.0652  0.05
Katin 1996   7  0.575  0.0411  0.1213  0.4949  0.064  0.17
Kiepura 1999   32  0.5020  0.0022  0.0824  0.2261  0.0426  0.09
Korecka 1992   45  0.4733  0.0051  0.0545  0.0545  0.0648  0.05
Kushner 1990   34  0.4931  0.0017  0.1223  0.2440  0.0620  0.12
Lilamand 2001   58  0.4340  0.0057  0.0644  0.0662  0.0450  0.05
Luisada 1990   41  0.4829  0.0026  0.0622  0.2551  0.0622  0.12
Luisada 2008   48  0.4726  0.0034  0.0839  0.0844  0.0636  0.07
Lushtak 2004   4  0.5715  0.013  0.272  0.6658  0.0410  0.16
Malcuzynski 1951   62  0.3666  0.0062  0.0555  0.0548  0.0555  0.05
Malcuzynski 1961   38  0.4934  0.0024  0.0725  0.2154  0.0624  0.11
Magaloff 1977   59  0.4222  0.0061  0.0461  0.0456  0.0651  0.05
Magin 1975   51  0.4637  0.0053  0.0546  0.0552  0.0647  0.05
Meguri 1997   6  0.576  0.046  0.1312  0.4942  0.058  0.16
Milkina 1970   19  0.5349  0.0025  0.0821  0.2551  0.0618  0.12
Mohovich 1999   2  0.581  0.331  0.331  0.7161  0.046  0.17
Nezu 2005   23  0.5254  0.0016  0.1417  0.4459  0.0514  0.15
Ohlsson 1999   13  0.5510  0.0219  0.1218  0.3456  0.0419  0.12
Olejniczak 1990   35  0.4938  0.0035  0.0840  0.0855  0.0543  0.06
Osinska 1989   10  0.5516  0.015  0.134  0.6253  0.062  0.19
Perlemuter 1992   47  0.4750  0.0056  0.0548  0.0560  0.0459  0.04
Poblocka 1999   24  0.5253  0.0031  0.0826  0.1963  0.0427  0.09
Rangell 2001   21  0.5330  0.0028  0.0730  0.1750  0.0625  0.10
Richter 1960   39  0.4955  0.0037  0.1333  0.1363  0.0341  0.06
Richter 1961   37  0.4939  0.0033  0.0836  0.0838  0.0635  0.07
Rosen 1989   12  0.5513  0.0118  0.1416  0.4546  0.0612  0.16
Rubinstein 1939   44  0.4742  0.0045  0.0643  0.0650  0.0638  0.06
Rubinstein 1952   46  0.4736  0.0048  0.0458  0.0455  0.0656  0.05
Rubinstein 1966   16  0.5418  0.0123  0.0619  0.3150  0.0521  0.12
Rudanovskaya 2007   14  0.554  0.057  0.147  0.5331  0.121  0.25
Shebanova 2002   36  0.4941  0.0043  0.0553  0.0563  0.0463  0.04
Smith 1975   30  0.5023  0.0049  0.0459  0.0462  0.0561  0.04
Sztompka 1959   53  0.4562  0.0058  0.0363  0.0352  0.0562  0.04
Tanyel 1992   3  0.582  0.202  0.295  0.6154  0.055  0.17
Tsujii 2005   5  0.5746  0.008  0.169  0.5261  0.0511  0.16
Uninsky 1959   9  0.5617  0.0113  0.1014  0.4950  0.057  0.16
Vardi 1988   40  0.4832  0.0030  0.0731  0.1662  0.0429  0.08
Wasowski 1980   50  0.4652  0.0041  0.0554  0.0561  0.0458  0.04
Zimerman 1975   11  0.558  0.0312  0.1315  0.4860  0.0516  0.15
Random 1   66  -0.0465  0.0066  0.0166  0.0163  0.0266  0.01
Random 2   64  0.0328  0.0065  0.0264  0.0214  0.3130  0.08
Random 3   65  -0.0160  0.0064  0.0265  0.0252  0.0365  0.02

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).