Lilamand 2001

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   45  0.6232  0.0023  0.0827  0.1851  0.0532  0.09
Ax 1995   28  0.6759  0.0017  0.0930  0.1454  0.0533  0.08
Bacha 1998   56  0.5563  0.0060  0.0463  0.0457  0.0457  0.04
Barbosa 1983   59  0.4834  0.0043  0.0453  0.0452  0.0560  0.04
BenOr 1989   57  0.5556  0.0028  0.0721  0.2223  0.2412  0.23
Biret 1990   32  0.6639  0.0039  0.0539  0.0537  0.0651  0.05
Brailowsky 1960   52  0.5825  0.0154  0.0460  0.0444  0.0642  0.05
Chiu 1999   48  0.6045  0.0048  0.0548  0.0534  0.0737  0.06
Clidat 1994   33  0.6549  0.0050  0.0455  0.0461  0.0462  0.04
Cohen 1997   47  0.6031  0.0040  0.0635  0.069  0.5120  0.17
Cortot 1951   62  0.4354  0.0032  0.0532  0.0910  0.4715  0.21
Csalog 1996   9  0.7615  0.017  0.149  0.4421  0.309  0.36
Czerny 1989   36  0.6448  0.0059  0.0462  0.0450  0.0558  0.04
Ezaki 2006   19  0.7143  0.0035  0.0541  0.0555  0.0539  0.05
Falvay 1989   10  0.765  0.056  0.1810  0.4153  0.0524  0.14
Fiorentino 1962   34  0.6551  0.0036  0.0634  0.0657  0.0550  0.05
Fliere 1977   49  0.6047  0.0056  0.0550  0.0558  0.0454  0.04
Fou 1978   53  0.5716  0.0151  0.0543  0.0558  0.0544  0.05
Francois 1956   38  0.6327  0.0024  0.0525  0.1932  0.1421  0.16
Goldenweiser 1946   13  0.7458  0.0020  0.0620  0.232  0.696  0.40
Gornostaeva 1994   63  0.3718  0.0161  0.0461  0.0463  0.0464  0.04
Groot 1988   16  0.7240  0.0018  0.0615  0.3334  0.0722  0.15
Hatto 1993   11  0.7536  0.009  0.088  0.4448  0.0523  0.15
Hatto 1997   7  0.767  0.038  0.156  0.4531  0.1013  0.21
Horszowski 1983   37  0.6326  0.0158  0.0542  0.0546  0.0540  0.05
Indjic 2001   8  0.7621  0.0110  0.147  0.4431  0.1014  0.21
Katin 1996   39  0.6338  0.0053  0.0457  0.0457  0.0459  0.04
Kiepura 1999   61  0.4730  0.0055  0.0452  0.0432  0.1135  0.07
Korecka 1992   30  0.6655  0.0047  0.0551  0.0515  0.3925  0.14
Kushner 1990   51  0.5835  0.0021  0.0723  0.2220  0.2910  0.25
Lilamand 2001   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Luisada 1990   22  0.6942  0.0029  0.0822  0.2220  0.2811  0.25
Luisada 2008   40  0.6344  0.0034  0.0454  0.0433  0.0647  0.05
Lushtak 2004   25  0.6817  0.0127  0.0717  0.2735  0.0726  0.14
Malcuzynski 1951   27  0.6722  0.0122  0.0619  0.2344  0.0529  0.11
Malcuzynski 1961   35  0.6420  0.0111  0.0912  0.3732  0.1116  0.20
Magaloff 1977   44  0.6214  0.0133  0.0544  0.0551  0.0548  0.05
Magin 1975   17  0.7213  0.0115  0.0729  0.1427  0.2319  0.18
Meguri 1997   20  0.719  0.0216  0.0714  0.344  0.398  0.36
Milkina 1970   24  0.6810  0.0226  0.0726  0.1946  0.0530  0.10
Mohovich 1999   12  0.7541  0.0012  0.0911  0.3851  0.0427  0.12
Nezu 2005   41  0.6337  0.0037  0.0633  0.0644  0.0738  0.06
Ohlsson 1999   4  0.823  0.133  0.274  0.639  0.494  0.56
Olejniczak 1990   29  0.6757  0.0031  0.0531  0.1035  0.0734  0.08
Osinska 1989   21  0.7061  0.0038  0.0540  0.0551  0.0541  0.05
Perlemuter 1992   15  0.7324  0.0119  0.0716  0.285  0.517  0.38
Poblocka 1999   23  0.6864  0.0041  0.0538  0.0558  0.0455  0.04
Rangell 2001   18  0.7146  0.0030  0.1024  0.2038  0.0728  0.12
Richter 1960   58  0.5053  0.0063  0.0637  0.0652  0.0446  0.05
Richter 1961   60  0.4766  0.0062  0.0459  0.0450  0.0556  0.04
Rosen 1989   42  0.6228  0.0046  0.0636  0.0646  0.0549  0.05
Rubinstein 1939   46  0.618  0.0244  0.0547  0.0548  0.0643  0.05
Rubinstein 1952   50  0.5911  0.0245  0.0546  0.0551  0.0552  0.05
Rubinstein 1966   55  0.5623  0.0157  0.0545  0.0561  0.0461  0.04
Rudanovskaya 2007   6  0.7852  0.0014  0.0913  0.3614  0.475  0.41
Shebanova 2002   26  0.6829  0.0025  0.0628  0.1742  0.0631  0.10
Smith 1975   3  0.842  0.162  0.262  0.663  0.652  0.65
Sztompka 1959   2  0.844  0.054  0.383  0.661  0.691  0.67
Tanyel 1992   14  0.7412  0.0113  0.0918  0.2530  0.1518  0.19
Tsujii 2005   5  0.796  0.045  0.225  0.5635  0.0717  0.20
Uninsky 1959   1  0.851  0.281  0.281  0.707  0.563  0.63
Vardi 1988   31  0.6619  0.0142  0.0549  0.0547  0.0545  0.05
Wasowski 1980   54  0.5660  0.0049  0.0458  0.0453  0.0453  0.04
Zimerman 1975   43  0.6233  0.0052  0.0456  0.0459  0.0463  0.04
Random 1   65  -0.1065  0.0065  0.0265  0.0248  0.0465  0.03
Random 2   64  0.0062  0.0064  0.0364  0.0327  0.1836  0.07
Random 3   66  -0.1650  0.0066  0.0166  0.0155  0.0366  0.02

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).