Perahia 1994

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   23  0.5737  0.0023  0.1123  0.3454  0.0525  0.13
Ashkenazy 1981   28  0.5546  0.0031  0.0930  0.1957  0.0533  0.10
Beliavsky 2004   33  0.5424  0.0021  0.0924  0.3036  0.0820  0.15
BenOr 1989   17  0.608  0.0214  0.1114  0.5249  0.0617  0.18
Biret 1990   19  0.5927  0.0025  0.1025  0.3058  0.0430  0.11
Blet 2003   44  0.5064  0.0046  0.0456  0.0440  0.0557  0.04
Block 1995   57  0.4330  0.0061  0.0457  0.0446  0.0561  0.04
Brailowsky 1960   26  0.5640  0.0045  0.0546  0.0538  0.0936  0.07
Chiu 1999   61  0.4031  0.0054  0.0459  0.0460  0.0454  0.04
Clidat 1994   9  0.6410  0.0217  0.1315  0.5029  0.1512  0.27
Cohen 1997   60  0.4132  0.0037  0.0545  0.0524  0.3128  0.12
Coop 1987   47  0.4925  0.0029  0.1028  0.2250  0.0629  0.11
Cortot 1951   45  0.4911  0.0159  0.0543  0.0553  0.0552  0.05
Czerny 1949   24  0.5612  0.0130  0.0931  0.1745  0.0632  0.10
Czerny 1949b   27  0.559  0.0235  0.1033  0.1062  0.0439  0.06
Ezaki 2006   51  0.4819  0.0150  0.0550  0.0560  0.0453  0.04
Falvay 1989   58  0.4250  0.0055  0.0458  0.0457  0.0555  0.04
Ferenczy 1958   50  0.4836  0.0040  0.0552  0.0554  0.0548  0.05
Fiorentino 1962   46  0.4953  0.0051  0.0548  0.0541  0.0741  0.06
Fliere 1977   25  0.5643  0.0027  0.1326  0.2959  0.0527  0.12
Fou 1978   39  0.5134  0.0044  0.0553  0.0552  0.0646  0.05
Francois 1956   35  0.5335  0.0042  0.0542  0.0555  0.0464  0.04
Hatto 1997   14  0.6142  0.0011  0.2012  0.5323  0.2210  0.34
Horowitz 1971   6  0.6516  0.019  0.177  0.5818  0.425  0.49
Horowitz 1985   12  0.6254  0.0016  0.1718  0.456  0.564  0.50
Indjic 2001   16  0.6139  0.0010  0.1113  0.5324  0.2211  0.34
Kapell 1951   49  0.4958  0.0047  0.0640  0.0657  0.0547  0.05
Kiepura 1999   36  0.5315  0.0143  0.0637  0.0637  0.0738  0.06
Kilenyi 1937   55  0.4663  0.0049  0.0544  0.0555  0.0549  0.05
Kissin 1993   31  0.5449  0.0024  0.1020  0.4057  0.0523  0.14
Kitain 1937   62  0.4029  0.0038  0.0551  0.0522  0.3426  0.13
Kushner 1990   8  0.6418  0.018  0.1410  0.5660  0.0421  0.15
Levy 1951   37  0.5233  0.0026  0.1127  0.2428  0.2315  0.23
Luisada 1990   42  0.5157  0.0058  0.0454  0.0460  0.0460  0.04
Lushtak 2004   10  0.633  0.087  0.152  0.7326  0.306  0.47
Lympany 1968   15  0.6121  0.0120  0.0921  0.3841  0.0818  0.17
Magaloff 1977   41  0.5151  0.0057  0.0549  0.0562  0.0458  0.04
Magaloff 1977b   43  0.5062  0.0056  0.0460  0.0457  0.0563  0.04
Magin 1975   53  0.4755  0.0053  0.0363  0.0349  0.0656  0.04
Milkina 1970   1  0.701  0.361  0.351  0.7616  0.542  0.64
Mohovich 1999   3  0.685  0.074  0.203  0.7118  0.453  0.57
Nadelmann 1956   2  0.692  0.142  0.216  0.6514  0.337  0.46
Ohlsson 1999   52  0.4826  0.0028  0.0929  0.2157  0.0531  0.10
Olejniczac 1990   48  0.4956  0.0052  0.0638  0.0642  0.0740  0.06
Olejniczak 1991   40  0.5160  0.0039  0.0547  0.0559  0.0544  0.05
Osinska 1989   7  0.6417  0.0113  0.139  0.5659  0.0419  0.15
Paderewski 1912   30  0.5538  0.0036  0.0636  0.0659  0.0450  0.05
Perahia 1994   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Perlemuter 1986   20  0.5920  0.0119  0.0917  0.4760  0.0422  0.14
Poblocka 1999   34  0.5328  0.0033  0.0934  0.0953  0.0537  0.07
Rangell 2001   38  0.5123  0.0032  0.0832  0.1650  0.0534  0.09
Risler 1920   59  0.4265  0.0062  0.0639  0.0659  0.0543  0.05
Rosen 1989   56  0.4441  0.0060  0.0461  0.0460  0.0462  0.04
Rubinstein 1939   5  0.667  0.043  0.255  0.696  0.591  0.64
Rubinstein 1952   18  0.5944  0.0015  0.1316  0.4859  0.0424  0.14
Rubinstein 1966   11  0.6313  0.015  0.198  0.5826  0.318  0.42
Rummel 1943   29  0.5548  0.0034  0.0735  0.0757  0.0451  0.05
Shebanova 2002   21  0.596  0.0512  0.1411  0.5643  0.0616  0.18
Smith 1975   4  0.664  0.076  0.334  0.7125  0.209  0.38
Szpilman 1948   32  0.5445  0.0041  0.0455  0.0448  0.0642  0.05
Uninsky 1971   22  0.5714  0.0122  0.0922  0.3630  0.1714  0.25
Wasowski 1980   13  0.6122  0.0018  0.1119  0.4330  0.1613  0.26
Weissenberg 1971   54  0.4752  0.0048  0.0641  0.0658  0.0445  0.05
Random 1    65  -0.0659  0.0065  0.0265  0.0261  0.0265  0.02
Random 2   63  0.0261  0.0063  0.0362  0.0340  0.0559  0.04
Random 3   64  -0.0247  0.0064  0.0264  0.0215  0.3335  0.08
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).