Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   55  0.4731  0.0028  0.0630  0.1358  0.0532  0.08
Ax 1995   25  0.5822  0.0120  0.1017  0.3452  0.0615  0.14
Bacha 1998   60  0.4463  0.0059  0.0459  0.0460  0.0460  0.04
Barbosa 1983   57  0.4633  0.0037  0.0740  0.0757  0.0539  0.06
BenOr 1989   40  0.5354  0.0030  0.0725  0.2054  0.0526  0.10
Biret 1990   24  0.5820  0.0114  0.0911  0.4063  0.0417  0.13
Brailowsky 1960   50  0.4928  0.0047  0.0649  0.0659  0.0545  0.05
Chiu 1999   56  0.4640  0.0058  0.0463  0.0446  0.0646  0.05
Clidat 1994   54  0.4843  0.0057  0.0460  0.0447  0.0651  0.05
Cohen 1997   63  0.3261  0.0063  0.0552  0.0550  0.0552  0.05
Cortot 1951   58  0.4644  0.0053  0.0645  0.0637  0.0643  0.06
Csalog 1996   5  0.6213  0.026  0.184  0.5655  0.057  0.17
Czerny 1989   4  0.648  0.048  0.126  0.5452  0.058  0.16
Ezaki 2006   34  0.5557  0.0044  0.0554  0.0548  0.0644  0.05
Falvay 1989   7  0.629  0.0411  0.0913  0.3760  0.0418  0.12
Fiorentino 1962   46  0.5141  0.0051  0.0553  0.0558  0.0653  0.05
Fliere 1977   43  0.5237  0.0043  0.0646  0.0663  0.0358  0.04
Fou 1978   36  0.5424  0.0021  0.1016  0.3460  0.0419  0.12
Francois 1956   52  0.4916  0.0142  0.0642  0.0660  0.0455  0.05
Goldenweiser 1946   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Gornostaeva 1994   61  0.4339  0.0056  0.0650  0.0661  0.0454  0.05
Groot 1988   3  0.643  0.092  0.181  0.7157  0.055  0.19
Hatto 1993   15  0.5962  0.0027  0.0631  0.1359  0.0533  0.08
Hatto 1997   14  0.6051  0.0026  0.0922  0.2363  0.0425  0.10
Horszowski 1983   29  0.5727  0.0032  0.0732  0.1332  0.1022  0.11
Indjic 2001   11  0.6010  0.0325  0.0624  0.2155  0.0624  0.11
Katin 1996   44  0.5149  0.0050  0.0651  0.0647  0.0638  0.06
Kiepura 1999   59  0.4534  0.0055  0.0556  0.0559  0.0456  0.04
Korecka 1992   30  0.5655  0.0040  0.0738  0.0757  0.0447  0.05
Kushner 1990   47  0.5060  0.0031  0.0728  0.1755  0.0431  0.08
Lilamand 2001   22  0.5836  0.0019  0.1221  0.2718  0.352  0.31
Luisada 1990   28  0.5742  0.0012  0.0914  0.3758  0.0514  0.14
Luisada 2008   38  0.5447  0.0038  0.0836  0.0855  0.0440  0.06
Lushtak 2004   32  0.5659  0.0022  0.0919  0.3062  0.0423  0.11
Malcuzynski 1951   18  0.591  0.231  0.223  0.5743  0.066  0.18
Malcuzynski 1961   31  0.562  0.103  0.167  0.5159  0.0510  0.16
Magaloff 1977   42  0.5221  0.0123  0.0929  0.1762  0.0527  0.09
Magin 1975   9  0.616  0.059  0.1110  0.4257  0.0513  0.14
Meguri 1997   10  0.615  0.0810  0.1020  0.2728  0.163  0.21
Milkina 1970   33  0.5652  0.0033  0.0835  0.0852  0.0635  0.07
Mohovich 1999   21  0.5815  0.0117  0.0923  0.2263  0.0429  0.09
Nezu 2005   39  0.5348  0.0041  0.0934  0.0963  0.0441  0.06
Ohlsson 1999   26  0.5826  0.0036  0.0739  0.0762  0.0448  0.05
Olejniczak 1990   13  0.6019  0.0116  0.1112  0.3742  0.0711  0.16
Osinska 1989   6  0.6245  0.0015  0.119  0.4757  0.0512  0.15
Perlemuter 1992   27  0.5738  0.0048  0.0461  0.0448  0.0559  0.04
Poblocka 1999   23  0.5846  0.0034  0.1033  0.1058  0.0534  0.07
Rangell 2001   35  0.5532  0.0046  0.0555  0.0557  0.0464  0.04
Richter 1960   49  0.4930  0.0061  0.0741  0.0762  0.0449  0.05
Richter 1961   62  0.4225  0.0062  0.0647  0.0646  0.0636  0.06
Rosen 1989   20  0.5918  0.0118  0.0915  0.3556  0.0516  0.13
Rubinstein 1939   41  0.5335  0.0039  0.0737  0.0757  0.0537  0.06
Rubinstein 1952   37  0.5423  0.0029  0.0626  0.1962  0.0430  0.09
Rubinstein 1966   48  0.5050  0.0049  0.0558  0.0563  0.0462  0.04
Rudanovskaya 2007   12  0.6011  0.0345  0.0557  0.0557  0.0463  0.04
Shebanova 2002   19  0.5917  0.0135  0.0643  0.0657  0.0550  0.05
Smith 1975   17  0.597  0.057  0.158  0.4940  0.084  0.20
Sztompka 1959   1  0.654  0.084  0.165  0.5621  0.391  0.47
Tanyel 1992   16  0.5914  0.0213  0.0918  0.3052  0.0520  0.12
Tsujii 2005   8  0.6153  0.0024  0.0727  0.1859  0.0528  0.09
Uninsky 1959   2  0.6512  0.035  0.162  0.6359  0.049  0.16
Vardi 1988   45  0.5129  0.0052  0.0648  0.0663  0.0361  0.04
Wasowski 1980   51  0.4966  0.0054  0.0462  0.0463  0.0457  0.04
Zimerman 1975   53  0.4865  0.0060  0.0644  0.0653  0.0642  0.06
Random 1   66  -0.0656  0.0065  0.0265  0.0255  0.0365  0.02
Random 2   65  -0.0564  0.0066  0.0166  0.0166  0.0166  0.01
Random 3   64  0.0158  0.0064  0.0464  0.0411  0.3821  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).