<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Interesting study: Evaluation of tools for o-technical analysis</title>
	<atom:link href="http://o-training.net/blog/2011/07/18/interesting-study-evaluation-of-tools-for-o-technical-analysis/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://o-training.net/blog/2011/07/18/interesting-study-evaluation-of-tools-for-o-technical-analysis/</link>
	<description>Your Orienteering Technical Training Resource</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2014 11:34:37 +0200</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jan Kocbach</title>
		<link>http://o-training.net/blog/2011/07/18/interesting-study-evaluation-of-tools-for-o-technical-analysis/comment-page-1/#comment-90</link>
		<dc:creator>Jan Kocbach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:28:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://o-training.net/blog/?p=447#comment-90</guid>
		<description>@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&#039;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&#039;m looking forward to see more of your results with AMRD:)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Martin: Yes &#8211; 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&#8217;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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m looking forward to see more of your results with AMRD:)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin Lerjen</title>
		<link>http://o-training.net/blog/2011/07/18/interesting-study-evaluation-of-tools-for-o-technical-analysis/comment-page-1/#comment-89</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Lerjen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:18:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://o-training.net/blog/?p=447#comment-89</guid>
		<description>Let me point out, that the study reflects the personal opinion of four athletes and their coach (-es?). They all were unfamiliar with AMRD.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let me point out, that the study reflects the personal opinion of four athletes and their coach (-es?). They all were unfamiliar with AMRD.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
