Shebanova 2002

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   43  0.8018  0.0043  0.0640  0.0622  0.3733  0.15
Ashkenazy 1981   24  0.8546  0.0035  0.0734  0.0717  0.3532  0.16
Beliavsky 2004   50  0.7719  0.0052  0.0460  0.0438  0.0756  0.05
BenOr 1989   5  0.915  0.064  0.354  0.686  0.611  0.64
Biret 1990   54  0.7537  0.0048  0.0464  0.0425  0.1944  0.09
Blet 2003   33  0.8353  0.0038  0.0552  0.0548  0.0558  0.05
Block 1995   40  0.8157  0.0045  0.0551  0.0523  0.3235  0.13
Brailowsky 1960   53  0.7663  0.0057  0.0544  0.0549  0.0552  0.05
Chiu 1999   16  0.8825  0.0012  0.1412  0.4711  0.508  0.48
Clidat 1994   39  0.8140  0.0042  0.0933  0.0939  0.0647  0.07
Cohen 1997   59  0.6542  0.0060  0.0456  0.0415  0.3538  0.12
Coop 1987   12  0.8939  0.0010  0.1611  0.4823  0.3116  0.39
Cortot 1951   49  0.7832  0.0058  0.0642  0.0627  0.1843  0.10
Czerny 1949   48  0.7855  0.0020  0.0828  0.2052  0.0542  0.10
Czerny 1949b   28  0.846  0.0318  0.1017  0.3733  0.1127  0.20
Ezaki 2006   3  0.912  0.173  0.315  0.6015  0.475  0.53
Falvay 1989   14  0.8823  0.0016  0.1314  0.4421  0.3317  0.38
Ferenczy 1958   32  0.8359  0.0025  0.0724  0.2616  0.3718  0.31
Fiorentino 1962   21  0.8534  0.0031  0.1123  0.2729  0.1626  0.21
Fliere 1977   8  0.8913  0.018  0.159  0.5020  0.3115  0.39
Fou 1978   13  0.8812  0.0111  0.1510  0.4914  0.489  0.48
Francois 1956   52  0.7717  0.0153  0.0459  0.0444  0.0660  0.05
Hatto 1997   37  0.8158  0.0028  0.0927  0.2111  0.4120  0.29
Horowitz 1971   47  0.7926  0.0050  0.0461  0.0447  0.0565  0.04
Horowitz 1985   62  0.5849  0.0062  0.0641  0.0654  0.0551  0.05
Indjic 2001   36  0.8150  0.0029  0.0929  0.2011  0.4121  0.29
Kapell 1951   17  0.8841  0.0017  0.1119  0.3032  0.1228  0.19
Kiepura 1999   20  0.8510  0.0223  0.0820  0.303  0.5913  0.42
Kilenyi 1937   15  0.8861  0.0013  0.1216  0.4318  0.3914  0.41
Kissin 1993   1  0.934  0.142  0.233  0.6812  0.406  0.52
Kitain 1937   63  0.3647  0.0063  0.0546  0.0558  0.0464  0.04
Kushner 1990   34  0.8230  0.0040  0.0547  0.0535  0.0849  0.06
Levy 1951   57  0.7335  0.0059  0.0736  0.0744  0.0454  0.05
Luisada 1990   22  0.8536  0.0033  0.0737  0.0733  0.1045  0.08
Lushtak 2004   6  0.9020  0.009  0.148  0.5110  0.507  0.50
Lympany 1968   29  0.8331  0.0039  0.0553  0.0536  0.0848  0.06
Magaloff 1977   11  0.8951  0.0015  0.1515  0.438  0.4711  0.45
Magaloff 1977b   10  0.8933  0.0014  0.1713  0.456  0.4910  0.47
Magin 1975   7  0.907  0.027  0.177  0.5817  0.533  0.55
Milkina 1970   31  0.8321  0.0041  0.0738  0.0722  0.2236  0.12
Mohovich 1999   35  0.8216  0.0122  0.0822  0.2821  0.3022  0.29
Nadelmann 1956   55  0.7554  0.0056  0.0554  0.0541  0.0557  0.05
Ohlsson 1999   27  0.8427  0.0034  0.0735  0.0719  0.3631  0.16
Olejniczac 1990   23  0.8564  0.0032  0.1126  0.2130  0.1329  0.17
Olejniczak 1991   18  0.8656  0.0019  0.1018  0.3430  0.1725  0.24
Osinska 1989   9  0.893  0.175  0.222  0.7220  0.2712  0.44
Paderewski 1912   51  0.7760  0.0044  0.0548  0.0546  0.0659  0.05
Perahia 1994   60  0.6014  0.0155  0.0555  0.0518  0.2937  0.12
Perlemuter 1986   44  0.8038  0.0026  0.0732  0.2043  0.0541  0.10
Poblocka 1999   4  0.918  0.026  0.216  0.5816  0.542  0.56
Rangell 2001   19  0.8644  0.0030  0.0930  0.2023  0.3623  0.27
Risler 1920   56  0.7452  0.0047  0.0550  0.0539  0.0653  0.05
Rosen 1989   41  0.8145  0.0046  0.0463  0.0434  0.0850  0.06
Rubinstein 1939   58  0.709  0.0254  0.0457  0.0421  0.2839  0.11
Rubinstein 1952   42  0.8024  0.0049  0.0458  0.0444  0.0566  0.04
Rubinstein 1966   45  0.8029  0.0051  0.0643  0.0626  0.2140  0.11
Rummel 1943   61  0.5962  0.0061  0.0545  0.0558  0.0362  0.04
Shebanova 2002   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Smith 1975   30  0.8343  0.0036  0.0639  0.0653  0.0555  0.05
Szpilman 1948   38  0.8115  0.0121  0.0831  0.2034  0.0934  0.13
Uninsky 1971   25  0.8422  0.0027  0.0825  0.2215  0.3124  0.26
Wasowski 1980   46  0.7911  0.0237  0.0549  0.055  0.5430  0.16
Weissenberg 1971   26  0.8428  0.0024  0.0921  0.2817  0.3119  0.29
Average   2  0.931  0.211  0.211  0.7218  0.424  0.55
Random 1    65  -0.0566  0.0065  0.0265  0.0218  0.2546  0.07
Random 2   64  0.0948  0.0064  0.0462  0.0442  0.0461  0.04
Random 3   66  -0.1465  0.0066  0.0166  0.0118  0.2063  0.04

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).