Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   50  0.509  0.0332  0.0632  0.1147  0.0534  0.07
Ax 1995   27  0.6248  0.0033  0.0641  0.0656  0.0451  0.05
Bacha 1998   55  0.4743  0.0048  0.0647  0.0645  0.0547  0.05
Barbosa 1983   59  0.4427  0.0043  0.0739  0.0753  0.0538  0.06
BenOr 1989   39  0.5423  0.0117  0.1021  0.2343  0.0618  0.12
Biret 1990   30  0.6166  0.0027  0.0626  0.1959  0.0428  0.09
Brailowsky 1960   56  0.4753  0.0055  0.0362  0.0355  0.0464  0.03
Chiu 1999   57  0.4734  0.0057  0.0458  0.0451  0.0555  0.04
Clidat 1994   54  0.4846  0.0060  0.0456  0.0453  0.0560  0.04
Cohen 1997   63  0.3862  0.0062  0.0361  0.0350  0.0561  0.04
Cortot 1951   58  0.4444  0.0044  0.0834  0.0838  0.0635  0.07
Csalog 1996   14  0.6618  0.0113  0.107  0.4553  0.056  0.15
Czerny 1989   5  0.705  0.0612  0.1113  0.3950  0.059  0.14
Ezaki 2006   34  0.6059  0.0045  0.0933  0.0938  0.0632  0.07
Falvay 1989   22  0.6413  0.0141  0.0640  0.0643  0.0636  0.06
Fiorentino 1962   53  0.5060  0.0059  0.0363  0.0351  0.0662  0.04
Fliere 1977   41  0.5337  0.0051  0.0550  0.0544  0.0544  0.05
Fou 1978   43  0.5339  0.0036  0.0551  0.0556  0.0546  0.05
Francois 1956   49  0.517  0.0318  0.0730  0.1551  0.0530  0.09
Goldenweiser 1946   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Gornostaeva 1994   62  0.3947  0.0054  0.0553  0.0544  0.0652  0.05
Groot 1988   7  0.6835  0.0014  0.0811  0.4053  0.0513  0.14
Hatto 1993   19  0.6549  0.0029  0.0725  0.1962  0.0429  0.09
Hatto 1997   16  0.6614  0.0125  0.0619  0.2660  0.0422  0.10
Horszowski 1983   9  0.6726  0.0011  0.1014  0.3716  0.234  0.29
Indjic 2001   17  0.658  0.0326  0.0624  0.2163  0.0426  0.09
Katin 1996   47  0.5258  0.0056  0.0360  0.0362  0.0465  0.03
Kiepura 1999   60  0.4042  0.0052  0.0555  0.0541  0.0542  0.05
Korecka 1992   21  0.6536  0.0021  0.0720  0.2437  0.0616  0.12
Kushner 1990   46  0.5356  0.0015  0.0817  0.3152  0.0420  0.11
Lilamand 2001   1  0.761  0.331  0.331  0.665  0.531  0.59
Luisada 1990   6  0.694  0.063  0.153  0.4962  0.0412  0.14
Luisada 2008   32  0.6045  0.0024  0.0727  0.1847  0.0524  0.09
Lushtak 2004   35  0.5961  0.0028  0.0728  0.1763  0.0333  0.07
Malcuzynski 1951   31  0.6111  0.024  0.1610  0.4153  0.0514  0.14
Malcuzynski 1961   36  0.5612  0.0110  0.1012  0.3953  0.0511  0.14
Magaloff 1977   45  0.5322  0.0146  0.0737  0.0758  0.0540  0.06
Magin 1975   10  0.6725  0.0016  0.0916  0.3359  0.0419  0.11
Meguri 1997   12  0.663  0.089  0.109  0.4224  0.175  0.27
Milkina 1970   33  0.6038  0.0038  0.0738  0.0745  0.0537  0.06
Mohovich 1999   18  0.6516  0.0130  0.0729  0.1747  0.0527  0.09
Nezu 2005   40  0.5441  0.0034  0.0646  0.0647  0.0641  0.06
Ohlsson 1999   24  0.6429  0.0035  0.0548  0.0563  0.0357  0.04
Olejniczak 1990   15  0.666  0.047  0.148  0.4441  0.058  0.15
Osinska 1989   13  0.6655  0.0022  0.0915  0.3458  0.0415  0.12
Perlemuter 1992   3  0.7215  0.015  0.135  0.4621  0.263  0.35
Poblocka 1999   29  0.6152  0.0040  0.0735  0.0761  0.0445  0.05
Rangell 2001   26  0.6333  0.0031  0.0631  0.1245  0.0631  0.08
Richter 1960   52  0.5028  0.0061  0.0552  0.0559  0.0459  0.04
Richter 1961   61  0.4031  0.0063  0.0554  0.0562  0.0454  0.04
Rosen 1989   28  0.6219  0.0120  0.0622  0.2143  0.0523  0.10
Rubinstein 1939   42  0.5332  0.0047  0.0549  0.0561  0.0456  0.04
Rubinstein 1952   38  0.5417  0.0142  0.0642  0.0659  0.0453  0.05
Rubinstein 1966   48  0.5151  0.0053  0.0457  0.0463  0.0458  0.04
Rudanovskaya 2007   25  0.6430  0.0050  0.0644  0.0640  0.0550  0.05
Shebanova 2002   23  0.6424  0.0137  0.0643  0.0645  0.0639  0.06
Smith 1975   20  0.6540  0.0019  0.0518  0.2756  0.0421  0.10
Sztompka 1959   2  0.752  0.112  0.212  0.5415  0.442  0.49
Tanyel 1992   8  0.6810  0.026  0.126  0.4642  0.057  0.15
Tsujii 2005   11  0.6621  0.0123  0.0723  0.2163  0.0425  0.09
Uninsky 1959   4  0.7120  0.018  0.104  0.4852  0.0410  0.14
Vardi 1988   44  0.5350  0.0049  0.0645  0.0657  0.0448  0.05
Wasowski 1980   37  0.5565  0.0039  0.0736  0.0758  0.0443  0.05
Zimerman 1975   51  0.5064  0.0058  0.0459  0.0450  0.0563  0.04
Random 1   66  -0.0957  0.0066  0.0166  0.0134  0.0566  0.02
Random 2   65  -0.0563  0.0065  0.0265  0.0231  0.1249  0.05
Random 3   64  0.0454  0.0064  0.0364  0.034  0.4817  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).