Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   32  0.7116  0.015  0.146  0.5660  0.0518  0.17
Ax 1995   46  0.6713  0.0131  0.0632  0.1263  0.0433  0.07
Bacha 1998   53  0.6258  0.0054  0.0550  0.0560  0.0452  0.04
Barbosa 1983   63  0.4547  0.0057  0.0456  0.0456  0.0556  0.04
BenOr 1989   56  0.5824  0.0039  0.0455  0.0441  0.0646  0.05
Biret 1990   40  0.6934  0.0044  0.0452  0.0460  0.0463  0.04
Brailowsky 1960   42  0.6944  0.0035  0.0735  0.0741  0.0732  0.07
Chiu 1999   14  0.763  0.103  0.1610  0.5417  0.372  0.45
Clidat 1994   25  0.7310  0.0112  0.1316  0.4840  0.0616  0.17
Cohen 1997   41  0.6925  0.0010  0.0918  0.453  0.691  0.56
Cortot 1951   62  0.4855  0.0061  0.0459  0.0453  0.0465  0.04
Csalog 1996   7  0.796  0.047  0.133  0.6527  0.273  0.42
Czerny 1989   20  0.7435  0.0042  0.0544  0.0561  0.0454  0.04
Ezaki 2006   13  0.7665  0.0051  0.0548  0.0547  0.0538  0.05
Falvay 1989   8  0.7912  0.0113  0.157  0.5653  0.0514  0.17
Fiorentino 1962   9  0.7831  0.0011  0.119  0.5446  0.0613  0.18
Fliere 1977   12  0.7626  0.0017  0.1020  0.3850  0.0521  0.14
Fou 1978   55  0.6146  0.0034  0.0736  0.0754  0.0535  0.06
Francois 1956   36  0.7111  0.0121  0.1221  0.3719  0.337  0.35
Goldenweiser 1946   50  0.6438  0.0063  0.0540  0.0544  0.0639  0.05
Gornostaeva 1994   59  0.5329  0.0055  0.0542  0.0562  0.0461  0.04
Groot 1988   3  0.831  0.281  0.284  0.6420  0.284  0.42
Hatto 1993   28  0.7237  0.0046  0.0546  0.0561  0.0464  0.04
Hatto 1997   38  0.7152  0.0050  0.0543  0.0559  0.0542  0.05
Horszowski 1983   47  0.677  0.0258  0.0363  0.0360  0.0466  0.03
Indjic 2001   29  0.7221  0.0047  0.0737  0.0761  0.0445  0.05
Katin 1996   5  0.805  0.076  0.1312  0.5331  0.149  0.27
Kiepura 1999   61  0.4956  0.0059  0.0462  0.0442  0.0549  0.04
Korecka 1992   54  0.6139  0.0062  0.0460  0.0452  0.0453  0.04
Kushner 1990   60  0.5050  0.0033  0.0734  0.0751  0.0441  0.05
Lilamand 2001   43  0.6914  0.0123  0.0728  0.1538  0.0728  0.10
Luisada 1990   34  0.7161  0.0040  0.0457  0.0446  0.0558  0.04
Luisada 2008   45  0.6848  0.0043  0.0547  0.0557  0.0457  0.04
Lushtak 2004   21  0.7436  0.0015  0.1115  0.4942  0.0617  0.17
Malcuzynski 1951   58  0.5440  0.0056  0.0461  0.0433  0.0747  0.05
Malcuzynski 1961   57  0.5832  0.0048  0.0539  0.0556  0.0540  0.05
Magaloff 1977   44  0.6863  0.0049  0.0545  0.0556  0.0543  0.05
Magin 1975   48  0.6560  0.0060  0.0458  0.0440  0.0551  0.04
Meguri 1997   23  0.7354  0.0024  0.0922  0.2931  0.1610  0.22
Milkina 1970   22  0.749  0.0125  0.1027  0.1942  0.0625  0.11
Mohovich 1999   2  0.834  0.074  0.161  0.7126  0.195  0.37
Nezu 2005   51  0.6359  0.0045  0.0551  0.0560  0.0459  0.04
Ohlsson 1999   4  0.8043  0.0014  0.1511  0.5347  0.0519  0.16
Olejniczak 1990   37  0.7123  0.0037  0.0541  0.0535  0.0648  0.05
Osinska 1989   27  0.7353  0.0030  0.0629  0.1363  0.0334  0.06
Perlemuter 1992   15  0.7515  0.0153  0.0638  0.0630  0.1330  0.09
Poblocka 1999   26  0.7328  0.0028  0.0725  0.2251  0.0624  0.11
Rangell 2001   24  0.7351  0.0041  0.0454  0.0457  0.0462  0.04
Richter 1960   33  0.7118  0.0122  0.1023  0.2632  0.1115  0.17
Richter 1961   39  0.7019  0.0127  0.0724  0.2457  0.0427  0.10
Rosen 1989   16  0.7542  0.0020  0.1214  0.5042  0.0520  0.16
Rubinstein 1939   19  0.7427  0.009  0.145  0.5733  0.0811  0.21
Rubinstein 1952   49  0.6533  0.0032  0.0631  0.1234  0.0829  0.10
Rubinstein 1966   30  0.7249  0.0029  0.0826  0.2042  0.0626  0.11
Rudanovskaya 2007   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Shebanova 2002   11  0.7722  0.0018  0.1219  0.3958  0.0423  0.12
Smith 1975   6  0.8045  0.0016  0.1313  0.5128  0.158  0.28
Sztompka 1959   18  0.7430  0.0052  0.0453  0.0451  0.0555  0.04
Tanyel 1992   35  0.7117  0.0126  0.0730  0.1362  0.0336  0.06
Tsujii 2005   1  0.842  0.232  0.372  0.7050  0.0612  0.20
Uninsky 1959   10  0.7820  0.0019  0.1317  0.4550  0.0422  0.13
Vardi 1988   17  0.758  0.028  0.138  0.5524  0.246  0.36
Wasowski 1980   52  0.6362  0.0038  0.0549  0.0557  0.0450  0.04
Zimerman 1975   31  0.7241  0.0036  0.0733  0.0759  0.0537  0.06
Random 1   66  -0.0964  0.0066  0.0166  0.0125  0.1660  0.04
Random 2   65  0.0066  0.0065  0.0265  0.0232  0.1244  0.05
Random 3   64  0.0457  0.0064  0.0364  0.0317  0.2631  0.09

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).