BenOr 1989

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   39  0.5936  0.0045  0.0942  0.0933  0.1149  0.10
Ax 1995   14  0.6621  0.0115  0.1312  0.5627  0.2923  0.40
Bacha 1998   46  0.5348  0.0031  0.1031  0.187  0.5727  0.32
Barbosa 1983   41  0.5727  0.0046  0.1039  0.1027  0.1942  0.14
BenOr 1989   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Biret 1990   27  0.629  0.0311  0.1211  0.569  0.646  0.60
Brailowsky 1960   28  0.6237  0.0029  0.0926  0.2924  0.2830  0.28
Chiu 1999   50  0.4950  0.0050  0.0846  0.0822  0.4036  0.18
Clidat 1994   43  0.5535  0.0036  0.0943  0.0917  0.4134  0.19
Cohen 1997   62  0.3757  0.0063  0.0655  0.0620  0.3045  0.13
Cortot 1951   57  0.4256  0.0062  0.0460  0.0428  0.2750  0.10
Csalog 1996   48  0.5359  0.0048  0.1135  0.1145  0.0657  0.08
Czerny 1989   40  0.5858  0.0040  0.0851  0.0833  0.1152  0.09
Ezaki 2006   34  0.6120  0.0138  0.0852  0.0836  0.0954  0.08
Falvay 1989   3  0.7013  0.017  0.196  0.6226  0.3712  0.48
Fiorentino 1962   16  0.6523  0.0016  0.1615  0.5418  0.4314  0.48
Fliere 1977   47  0.5329  0.0043  0.0944  0.0933  0.1051  0.09
Fou 1978   36  0.6043  0.0018  0.1027  0.2731  0.1631  0.21
Francois 1956   44  0.5539  0.0047  0.1134  0.1129  0.1944  0.14
Goldenweiser 1946   59  0.4061  0.0055  0.0459  0.0446  0.0660  0.05
Gornostaeva 1994   49  0.5134  0.0049  0.1038  0.1019  0.3735  0.19
Groot 1988   26  0.6341  0.0019  0.1316  0.4716  0.4715  0.47
Hatto 1993   15  0.6544  0.0021  0.0919  0.4023  0.4221  0.41
Hatto 1997   10  0.6716  0.0120  0.1118  0.4420  0.4618  0.45
Horszowski 1983   61  0.3853  0.0060  0.0464  0.0428  0.1755  0.08
Indjic 2001   11  0.6724  0.0022  0.1217  0.4520  0.4619  0.45
Katin 1996   30  0.6147  0.0034  0.0847  0.0846  0.0856  0.08
Kiepura 1999   29  0.6252  0.0037  0.1037  0.1030  0.2440  0.15
Korecka 1992   20  0.6410  0.0212  0.1314  0.543  0.724  0.62
Kushner 1990   17  0.6531  0.0023  0.1321  0.3611  0.5320  0.44
Lilamand 2001   55  0.4438  0.0057  0.0461  0.0415  0.3847  0.12
Luisada 1990   22  0.6415  0.0127  0.0929  0.2314  0.6325  0.38
Luisada 2008   21  0.6445  0.0032  0.0832  0.1612  0.6628  0.32
Lushtak 2004   18  0.6519  0.0124  0.0925  0.2923  0.2929  0.29
Malcuzynski 1951   7  0.692  0.143  0.149  0.5916  0.4811  0.53
Malcuzynski 1961   8  0.697  0.055  0.205  0.6316  0.4810  0.55
Magaloff 1977   58  0.4140  0.0054  0.0654  0.0640  0.0859  0.07
Magin 1975   9  0.6811  0.029  0.1210  0.5811  0.568  0.57
Meguri 1997   51  0.4862  0.0051  0.1040  0.1024  0.3337  0.18
Milkina 1970   13  0.6614  0.0110  0.138  0.5922  0.3616  0.46
Mohovich 1999   35  0.6146  0.0041  0.0849  0.0820  0.3338  0.16
Nezu 2005   1  0.714  0.076  0.222  0.686  0.761  0.72
Ohlsson 1999   23  0.6412  0.0125  0.1023  0.3219  0.4724  0.39
Olejniczak 1990   2  0.701  0.321  0.321  0.682  0.703  0.69
Osinska 1989   6  0.696  0.064  0.144  0.6415  0.557  0.59
Perlemuter 1992   56  0.4251  0.0052  0.0848  0.085  0.5233  0.20
Poblocka 1999   5  0.6918  0.018  0.157  0.623  0.782  0.70
Rangell 2001   52  0.4560  0.0058  0.0462  0.0454  0.0464  0.04
Richter 1960   60  0.3964  0.0059  0.0463  0.0451  0.0562  0.04
Richter 1961   63  0.3365  0.0061  0.0457  0.0453  0.0561  0.04
Rosen 1989   33  0.6132  0.0028  0.0928  0.2416  0.4726  0.34
Rubinstein 1939   45  0.5442  0.0044  0.1433  0.1436  0.1146  0.12
Rubinstein 1952   38  0.6028  0.0033  0.0850  0.0823  0.3339  0.16
Rubinstein 1966   31  0.6122  0.0030  0.0830  0.2128  0.2232  0.21
Rudanovskaya 2007   53  0.4526  0.0053  0.0753  0.0726  0.2843  0.14
Shebanova 2002   54  0.4454  0.0056  0.0456  0.0443  0.0563  0.04
Smith 1975   42  0.5649  0.0042  0.1136  0.1144  0.0948  0.10
Sztompka 1959   32  0.618  0.0414  0.1124  0.301  0.7217  0.46
Tanyel 1992   19  0.6517  0.0113  0.1213  0.5420  0.4313  0.48
Tsujii 2005   25  0.6330  0.0035  0.1041  0.1042  0.0853  0.09
Uninsky 1959   37  0.6025  0.0039  0.0845  0.0851  0.0658  0.07
Vardi 1988   24  0.6333  0.0026  0.1022  0.3420  0.4822  0.40
Wasowski 1980   12  0.665  0.0617  0.1120  0.372  0.819  0.55
Zimerman 1975   4  0.693  0.082  0.193  0.6614  0.565  0.61
Random 1   66  -0.0866  0.0065  0.0265  0.0263  0.0366  0.02
Random 2   65  -0.0663  0.0066  0.0166  0.0157  0.0365  0.02
Random 3   64  0.0555  0.0064  0.0458  0.042  0.5741  0.15

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).