Interesting study: Evaluation of tools for o-technical analysis

Posted by Jan Kocbach, 18 Jul 2011@8:00

- Which feedback can you get from different tools for o-technical analysis, and how useful are they for trainers and runners? This was the question asked in a scientific study performed by Hans Jørgen Kvåle and Kim André Sveen in a study they did as part of the course “Pedagogics with Sport focus” at the Dalarne high school this spring. Hans Jørgen Kvåle is one of the best Norwegian ski-orienteers.

The study is quite extensive – resulting in a 77-page report – including all the background material. Unfortunately for international readers the report is in Norwegian language. If you understand Norwegian, it is well worth a read, though.

Evaluation methods

The study looks at several different evaluation methods,

  • Split time analysis
  • Drawing your own route on the map after the training/competition
  • Analyzing GPS-track
  • Headcam-video worn by the runner (analyzed along with GPS-track)
  • Headcam-video by somebody running behind the runner (analyzed along with GPS-track)
  • Mapreading analysis with automatic mapreading device (accelerometer) – also called AMRD

The report concludes that the use of headcam-video synchronized with GPS-track was the most useful for o-technical analysis. 3DRerun was used for the headcam-synchronization in the study. The report also concluded that it is important to always draw your route after the training/competition as the first part of the analysis. The automatic mapreading detection is evaluated as very promising, but there were some problems with accuracy of the method in the study (this might be due to how the equipment was used).

You find the report in the “Overview articles” section of – along with among other Thierry Gueorgiou’s “Full speed – no mistake”, Martin Lerjen’s “Analyzing your mapreading” and Ultimate Orienteering’s report from the International Coach Conference 2009:

Note! The author of this article (Jan Kocbach) contributed to the study as a representative for the Norwegian Orienteering Federation by reading the report and giving comments and tips on the procedure used.



Comment by Martin Lerjen

July 18, 2011 @ 13:18

Let me point out, that the study reflects the personal opinion of four athletes and their coach (-es?). They all were unfamiliar with AMRD.


Comment by Jan Kocbach

July 18, 2011 @ 13:28

@Martin: Yes – as I pointed out in my summary, I think the limited success with using AMRD in the analysis reported here might be due to how the equipment was used. I have done some tests myself with AMRD (and I know you’ve done a lot more), and see that it is possible to get more than good enough accuracy using an accelerometer attached at the mapreading arm for the method to be very useful in analysis.

Also, I think for both headcam-analysis and AMRD analysis to be really useful you should go beyond analysis of a single training / single runner / specific mistakes. Rather both tools are at their most useful when using them to improve the general orienteering technique of a runner, typically using some kind of statistical data where you compare a group of runners on similar level.

I’m looking forward to see more of your results with AMRD:)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.