Ezaki 2006

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   28  0.6047  0.0028  0.0926  0.3014  0.4713  0.38
Ax 1995   7  0.6621  0.0111  0.129  0.5530  0.2415  0.36
Bacha 1998   46  0.5132  0.0052  0.0838  0.0834  0.1146  0.09
Barbosa 1983   16  0.6351  0.0016  0.1112  0.505  0.524  0.51
BenOr 1989   27  0.6133  0.0034  0.0936  0.0952  0.0850  0.08
Biret 1990   51  0.4939  0.0048  0.0652  0.0649  0.0761  0.06
Brailowsky 1960   26  0.6111  0.0219  0.1021  0.4430  0.2018  0.30
Chiu 1999   55  0.4344  0.0056  0.0650  0.0625  0.3041  0.13
Clidat 1994   49  0.5027  0.0032  0.0832  0.1525  0.2728  0.20
Cohen 1997   63  0.3456  0.0063  0.0557  0.0531  0.1055  0.07
Cortot 1951   59  0.3835  0.0061  0.0463  0.0433  0.0962  0.06
Csalog 1996   32  0.5862  0.0033  0.0935  0.0920  0.3930  0.19
Czerny 1989   22  0.6142  0.0015  0.1025  0.3131  0.2025  0.25
Ezaki 2006   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Falvay 1989   3  0.677  0.034  0.253  0.6444  0.0826  0.23
Fiorentino 1962   9  0.6510  0.0210  0.148  0.5524  0.3112  0.41
Fliere 1977   37  0.5513  0.0140  0.0837  0.0821  0.2638  0.14
Fou 1978   19  0.6131  0.0026  0.0927  0.3030  0.2224  0.26
Francois 1956   36  0.5634  0.0025  0.0829  0.2211  0.4121  0.30
Goldenweiser 1946   57  0.3954  0.0058  0.0746  0.0753  0.0559  0.06
Gornostaeva 1994   41  0.5222  0.0039  0.0744  0.0714  0.4435  0.18
Groot 1988   40  0.5355  0.0045  0.0649  0.0643  0.0856  0.07
Hatto 1993   17  0.6248  0.0020  0.0917  0.4629  0.2217  0.32
Hatto 1997   20  0.6143  0.0021  0.0719  0.4431  0.2119  0.30
Horszowski 1983   62  0.3564  0.0060  0.0561  0.0533  0.0758  0.06
Indjic 2001   25  0.6159  0.0024  0.0923  0.4134  0.0932  0.19
Katin 1996   8  0.6526  0.006  0.156  0.5921  0.385  0.47
Kiepura 1999   12  0.6452  0.0018  0.1022  0.4226  0.3314  0.37
Korecka 1992   21  0.6125  0.0023  0.0818  0.455  0.682  0.55
Kushner 1990   43  0.5257  0.0051  0.0740  0.0752  0.0560  0.06
Lilamand 2001   60  0.3840  0.0062  0.0560  0.0539  0.0663  0.05
Luisada 1990   34  0.5717  0.0137  0.1033  0.1033  0.1345  0.11
Luisada 2008   52  0.4923  0.0054  0.0654  0.0642  0.0954  0.07
Lushtak 2004   1  0.691  0.291  0.281  0.6610  0.541  0.60
Malcuzynski 1951   5  0.662  0.182  0.205  0.6424  0.328  0.45
Malcuzynski 1961   11  0.6519  0.018  0.147  0.5532  0.1323  0.27
Magaloff 1977   47  0.5028  0.0046  0.0648  0.067  0.6131  0.19
Magin 1975   29  0.609  0.0229  0.0928  0.2444  0.0840  0.14
Meguri 1997   45  0.5112  0.0238  0.0742  0.075  0.5329  0.19
Milkina 1970   24  0.6118  0.0127  0.0924  0.3334  0.1227  0.20
Mohovich 1999   30  0.6053  0.0031  0.1131  0.2116  0.3822  0.28
Nezu 2005   14  0.6445  0.0013  0.1313  0.4923  0.437  0.46
Ohlsson 1999   13  0.6429  0.0012  0.1514  0.4820  0.409  0.44
Olejniczak 1990   23  0.6137  0.0022  0.0720  0.4438  0.0833  0.19
Osinska 1989   31  0.5938  0.0030  0.0830  0.2140  0.1039  0.14
Perlemuter 1992   56  0.4036  0.0057  0.0653  0.0624  0.2043  0.11
Poblocka 1999   35  0.5758  0.0041  0.1034  0.1032  0.1542  0.12
Rangell 2001   39  0.5461  0.0044  0.0556  0.058  0.6336  0.18
Richter 1960   53  0.4541  0.0053  0.0558  0.0528  0.1847  0.09
Richter 1961   58  0.3930  0.0055  0.0559  0.0525  0.2544  0.11
Rosen 1989   38  0.5516  0.0136  0.0839  0.0836  0.0849  0.08
Rubinstein 1939   48  0.5024  0.0047  0.0745  0.0747  0.0851  0.07
Rubinstein 1952   42  0.5260  0.0043  0.0655  0.0643  0.0957  0.07
Rubinstein 1966   15  0.638  0.0314  0.1515  0.4625  0.2716  0.35
Rudanovskaya 2007   61  0.3750  0.0059  0.0462  0.0445  0.0664  0.05
Shebanova 2002   44  0.5215  0.0150  0.0647  0.0622  0.4137  0.16
Smith 1975   18  0.6220  0.0117  0.1116  0.4618  0.3911  0.42
Sztompka 1959   54  0.4546  0.0042  0.0651  0.0636  0.0953  0.07
Tanyel 1992   4  0.674  0.073  0.252  0.6519  0.433  0.53
Tsujii 2005   2  0.686  0.045  0.214  0.6425  0.336  0.46
Uninsky 1959   6  0.663  0.099  0.1410  0.5422  0.3410  0.43
Vardi 1988   50  0.4949  0.0049  0.0743  0.0746  0.0752  0.07
Wasowski 1980   33  0.5714  0.0135  0.0741  0.0717  0.4734  0.18
Zimerman 1975   10  0.655  0.067  0.1411  0.5429  0.1720  0.30
Random 1   66  -0.0465  0.0066  0.0166  0.0159  0.0365  0.02
Random 2   64  0.0263  0.0064  0.0264  0.0215  0.3848  0.09
Random 3   65  -0.0366  0.0065  0.0265  0.0258  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).