Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   15  0.0340  0.0018  0.0718  0.2464  0.0318  0.08
Ax 1995   38  0.0014  0.0120  0.0722  0.2064  0.0319  0.08
Bacha 1998   61  -0.0553  0.0057  0.0355  0.0365  0.0254  0.02
Barbosa 1983   37  0.0023  0.0116  0.0716  0.2764  0.0314  0.09
BenOr 1989   51  -0.0235  0.0052  0.0354  0.0365  0.0260  0.02
Biret 1990   41  0.0026  0.0139  0.0448  0.0464  0.0346  0.03
Brailowsky 1960   5  0.068  0.039  0.129  0.3864  0.039  0.11
Chiu 1999   64  -0.0561  0.0059  0.0360  0.0366  0.0150  0.02
Clidat 1994   30  0.0128  0.0030  0.0429  0.1264  0.0328  0.06
Cohen 1997   49  -0.0111  0.0241  0.0445  0.0464  0.0244  0.03
Cortot 1951   63  -0.0513  0.0135  0.0536  0.0566  0.0162  0.02
Csalog 1996   21  0.0232  0.0042  0.0537  0.0564  0.0239  0.03
Czerny 1989   13  0.0419  0.0111  0.0913  0.3365  0.0216  0.08
Ezaki 2006   32  0.0162  0.0047  0.0351  0.0365  0.0248  0.02
Falvay 1989   54  -0.0364  0.0056  0.0352  0.0364  0.0251  0.02
Fiorentino 1962   50  -0.0244  0.0054  0.0362  0.0364  0.0259  0.02
Fliere 1977   22  0.0250  0.0021  0.0720  0.2264  0.0222  0.07
Fou 1978   55  -0.0356  0.0040  0.0440  0.0464  0.0334  0.03
Francois 1956   8  0.0516  0.0114  0.0815  0.3164  0.0221  0.08
Goldenweiser 1946   11  0.046  0.034  0.164  0.4864  0.036  0.12
Gornostaeva 1994   39  0.0021  0.0119  0.0721  0.2264  0.0226  0.07
Groot 1988   7  0.055  0.046  0.158  0.4064  0.0311  0.11
Hatto 1993   59  -0.0441  0.0063  0.0357  0.0365  0.0261  0.02
Hatto 1997   60  -0.0465  0.0065  0.0264  0.0266  0.0164  0.01
Horszowski 1983   1  0.081  0.321  0.311  0.5763  0.042  0.15
Indjic 2001   62  -0.0555  0.0064  0.0265  0.0266  0.0165  0.01
Katin 1996   17  0.0343  0.0033  0.0534  0.0564  0.0236  0.03
Kiepura 1999   29  0.0115  0.0125  0.0530  0.1164  0.0230  0.05
Korecka 1992   6  0.067  0.035  0.183  0.5064  0.037  0.12
Kushner 1990   3  0.064  0.073  0.146  0.4258  0.045  0.13
Lilamand 2001   47  -0.0124  0.0151  0.0349  0.0366  0.0157  0.02
Luisada 1990   14  0.0329  0.0027  0.0526  0.1464  0.0329  0.06
Luisada 2008   23  0.0258  0.0028  0.0532  0.1064  0.0232  0.04
Lushtak 2004   28  0.0159  0.0037  0.0439  0.0464  0.0241  0.03
Malcuzynski 1951   48  -0.0147  0.0031  0.0531  0.1066  0.0147  0.03
Malcuzynski 1961   58  -0.0352  0.0049  0.0356  0.0365  0.0255  0.02
Magaloff 1977   34  0.0138  0.0046  0.0350  0.0364  0.0258  0.02
Magin 1975   46  -0.0154  0.0060  0.0358  0.0364  0.0253  0.02
Meguri 1997   65  -0.0522  0.0158  0.0361  0.0365  0.0256  0.02
Milkina 1970   2  0.082  0.102  0.252  0.5362  0.034  0.13
Mohovich 1999   19  0.0231  0.0026  0.0525  0.1564  0.0325  0.07
Nezu 2005   56  -0.0342  0.0053  0.0446  0.0464  0.0343  0.03
Ohlsson 1999   36  0.0148  0.0045  0.0447  0.0464  0.0238  0.03
Olejniczak 1990   57  -0.0363  0.0062  0.0359  0.0364  0.0263  0.02
Osinska 1989   20  0.0260  0.0022  0.0524  0.1864  0.0323  0.07
Perlemuter 1992   25  0.0157  0.0032  0.0628  0.1265  0.0231  0.05
Poblocka 1999   44  0.0039  0.0050  0.0442  0.0464  0.0333  0.03
Rangell 2001   66  -0.0751  0.0066  0.0166  0.0166  0.0166  0.01
Richter 1960   18  0.0246  0.0023  0.0719  0.2364  0.0224  0.07
Richter 1961   40  0.0045  0.0048  0.0353  0.0366  0.0149  0.02
Rosen 1989   9  0.049  0.0310  0.0710  0.3764  0.0310  0.11
Rubinstein 1939   4  0.0618  0.0113  0.1112  0.3564  0.0312  0.10
Rubinstein 1952   26  0.0110  0.0315  0.0714  0.3264  0.0220  0.08
Rubinstein 1966   16  0.0320  0.0112  0.0811  0.3664  0.0313  0.10
Rudanovskaya 2007   10  0.0412  0.0217  0.0717  0.2664  0.0315  0.09
Shebanova 2002   42  0.0037  0.0036  0.0438  0.0464  0.0340  0.03
Smith 1975   52  -0.0233  0.0061  0.0363  0.0365  0.0252  0.02
Sztompka 1959   33  0.0125  0.0144  0.0535  0.0565  0.0237  0.03
Tanyel 1992   27  0.0130  0.0024  0.0523  0.1964  0.0317  0.08
Tsujii 2005   45  0.0066  0.0055  0.0444  0.0464  0.0242  0.03
Uninsky 1959   43  0.0034  0.0038  0.0443  0.0464  0.0335  0.03
Vardi 1988   31  0.0149  0.0029  0.0527  0.1364  0.0327  0.06
Wasowski 1980   12  0.0436  0.008  0.135  0.4262  0.038  0.11
Zimerman 1975   35  0.0127  0.0043  0.0441  0.0464  0.0345  0.03
Random 1   24  0.013  0.097  0.137  0.411  0.611  0.50
Random 2   53  -0.0217  0.0134  0.0633  0.0611  0.353  0.14
Random 3   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target

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).