Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   59  0.3818  0.0027  0.1027  0.2638  0.0727  0.13
Ax 1995   31  0.4626  0.0023  0.1223  0.4245  0.0819  0.18
Bacha 1998   39  0.4524  0.0040  0.0739  0.0749  0.0638  0.06
Barbosa 1983   51  0.4128  0.0028  0.1025  0.2942  0.0725  0.14
BenOr 1989   32  0.4639  0.0026  0.1026  0.2754  0.0528  0.12
Biret 1990   43  0.4441  0.0038  0.0642  0.0662  0.0454  0.05
Brailowsky 1960   24  0.4843  0.0016  0.0916  0.5042  0.0814  0.20
Chiu 1999   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Clidat 1994   18  0.5015  0.0120  0.1018  0.4734  0.0718  0.18
Cohen 1997   63  0.2961  0.0063  0.0551  0.0554  0.0462  0.04
Cortot 1951   56  0.3958  0.0062  0.0456  0.0461  0.0464  0.04
Csalog 1996   14  0.5152  0.0014  0.1015  0.5043  0.0621  0.17
Czerny 1989   36  0.4540  0.0032  0.0732  0.1357  0.0436  0.07
Ezaki 2006   34  0.4638  0.0029  0.1130  0.2245  0.0630  0.11
Falvay 1989   6  0.558  0.026  0.225  0.6661  0.0422  0.16
Fiorentino 1962   26  0.4850  0.0033  0.0738  0.0758  0.0541  0.06
Fliere 1977   30  0.4649  0.0037  0.0643  0.0659  0.0545  0.05
Fou 1978   10  0.543  0.133  0.216  0.6535  0.085  0.23
Francois 1956   23  0.4834  0.0042  0.0641  0.0653  0.0555  0.05
Goldenweiser 1946   38  0.4523  0.0046  0.0553  0.0533  0.1034  0.07
Gornostaeva 1994   61  0.3564  0.0059  0.0555  0.0547  0.0553  0.05
Groot 1988   21  0.4921  0.0024  0.1024  0.3763  0.0429  0.12
Hatto 1993   12  0.5310  0.019  0.179  0.6245  0.0616  0.19
Hatto 1997   8  0.5444  0.008  0.167  0.6359  0.0423  0.16
Horszowski 1983   62  0.3447  0.0049  0.0458  0.0451  0.0456  0.04
Indjic 2001   9  0.5429  0.0010  0.208  0.6246  0.0615  0.19
Katin 1996   27  0.4645  0.0030  0.0929  0.2358  0.0531  0.11
Kiepura 1999   44  0.4422  0.0054  0.0648  0.0660  0.0443  0.05
Korecka 1992   25  0.4813  0.0145  0.0550  0.0540  0.0935  0.07
Kushner 1990   40  0.4546  0.0021  0.1021  0.4333  0.1011  0.21
Lilamand 2001   52  0.4031  0.0053  0.0554  0.0545  0.0549  0.05
Luisada 1990   47  0.4333  0.0039  0.0833  0.0858  0.0540  0.06
Luisada 2008   17  0.519  0.0219  0.0819  0.4633  0.153  0.26
Lushtak 2004   35  0.4551  0.0043  0.0736  0.0757  0.0452  0.05
Malcuzynski 1951   13  0.524  0.117  0.1520  0.4337  0.0817  0.19
Malcuzynski 1961   2  0.555  0.102  0.213  0.6742  0.079  0.22
Magaloff 1977   53  0.4055  0.0051  0.0646  0.0651  0.0551  0.05
Magin 1975   29  0.4653  0.0034  0.0735  0.0761  0.0447  0.05
Meguri 1997   57  0.3816  0.0060  0.0462  0.0461  0.0459  0.04
Milkina 1970   4  0.552  0.154  0.294  0.6751  0.078  0.22
Mohovich 1999   15  0.5135  0.0017  0.1013  0.5435  0.0813  0.21
Nezu 2005   3  0.5537  0.0011  0.2310  0.6252  0.0712  0.21
Ohlsson 1999   1  0.561  0.271  0.261  0.7421  0.432  0.56
Olejniczak 1990   28  0.4654  0.0031  0.0731  0.1659  0.0532  0.09
Osinska 1989   41  0.4442  0.0052  0.0461  0.0457  0.0558  0.04
Perlemuter 1992   55  0.4025  0.0061  0.0463  0.0449  0.0557  0.04
Poblocka 1999   11  0.5320  0.0013  0.2112  0.5939  0.094  0.23
Rangell 2001   54  0.4030  0.0055  0.0549  0.0537  0.0742  0.06
Richter 1960   58  0.3859  0.0057  0.0645  0.0660  0.0450  0.05
Richter 1961   42  0.4411  0.0136  0.0647  0.0633  0.1133  0.08
Rosen 1989   49  0.4263  0.0056  0.0644  0.0662  0.0361  0.04
Rubinstein 1939   46  0.4317  0.0035  0.0640  0.0656  0.0546  0.05
Rubinstein 1952   16  0.5114  0.0115  0.0914  0.5236  0.0910  0.22
Rubinstein 1966   22  0.4812  0.0118  0.0922  0.4353  0.0524  0.15
Rudanovskaya 2007   19  0.507  0.0325  0.1028  0.2528  0.216  0.23
Shebanova 2002   5  0.556  0.045  0.212  0.6916  0.501  0.59
Smith 1975   33  0.4656  0.0041  0.0734  0.0756  0.0637  0.06
Sztompka 1959   48  0.4232  0.0050  0.0460  0.0450  0.0648  0.05
Tanyel 1992   60  0.3565  0.0058  0.0459  0.0460  0.0460  0.04
Tsujii 2005   7  0.5419  0.0012  0.1611  0.6134  0.097  0.23
Uninsky 1959   20  0.4936  0.0022  0.1317  0.4757  0.0620  0.17
Vardi 1988   50  0.4262  0.0044  0.0737  0.0762  0.0539  0.06
Wasowski 1980   45  0.4348  0.0047  0.0457  0.0446  0.0744  0.05
Zimerman 1975   37  0.4527  0.0048  0.0552  0.0558  0.0463  0.04
Random 1   66  -0.0257  0.0066  0.0166  0.0161  0.0366  0.02
Random 2   64  0.0460  0.0064  0.0364  0.033  0.5326  0.13
Random 3   65  0.0066  0.0065  0.0265  0.0240  0.0565  0.03

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).