| Literature DB >> 28090147 |
K Przednowek1, J Iskra2, A Maszczyk3, M Nawrocka3.
Abstract
This study presents the application of regression shrinkage and artificial neural networks in predicting the results of 400-metres hurdles races. The regression models predict the results for suggested training loads in the selected three-month training period. The material of the research was based on training data of 21 Polish hurdlers from the Polish National Athletics Team Association. The athletes were characterized by a high level of performance. To assess the predictive ability of the constructed models a method of leave-one-out cross-validation was used. The analysis showed that the method generating the smallest prediction error was the LASSO regression extended by quadratic terms. The optimal model generated the prediction error of 0.59 s. Otherwise the optimal set of input variables (by reducing 8 of the 27 predictors) was defined. The results obtained justify the use of regression shrinkage in predicting sports outcomes. The resulting model can be used as a tool to assist the coach in planning training loads in a selected training period.Entities:
Keywords: 400-metres hurdles; Neural modelling; Predicting in sport; Regression shrinkage
Year: 2016 PMID: 28090147 PMCID: PMC5143778 DOI: 10.5604/20831862.1224463
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biol Sport ISSN: 0860-021X Impact factor: 2.806
Characteristics of the variables used to construct the models.
| Variable | Description |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expected result in 500 m (s) | 65.2 | 60.9 | 71.2 | 2.1 | 3.2 | |
| Age (years) | 22.3 | 19.0 | 27.0 | 2.0 | 8.8 | |
| BMI | 21.7 | 19.7 | 24.1 | 1.0 | 4.7 | |
| Current result in 500 m (s) | 66.4 | 61.5 | 72.1 | 2.0 | 3.0 | |
| General preparation period | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Special preparation period | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Maximal speed (m) | 1395 | 0 | 4300 | 799 | 57.3 | |
| Technical speed (m) | 1748 | 0 | 7550 | 1293 | 74.0 | |
| Technical and speed exercises (m) | 1418 | 0 | 5100 | 840 | 59.2 | |
| Speed endurance (m) | 4218 | 0 | 93670 | 7985 | 189.3 | |
| Specific hurdle endurance (m) | 4229 | 0 | 13700 | 2304 | 54.5 | |
| Pace runs (m) | 54599 | 0 | 211400 | 37070 | 67.9 | |
| Aerobic endurance (m) | 121086 | 4800 | 442100 | 75661 | 62.5 | |
| Strength endurance I (m) | 8690 | 0 | 31300 | 6806 | 78.3 | |
| Strength endurance II (amount) | 1999.8 | 0 | 21350 | 2616 | 130.8 | |
| General strength of lower limbs (kg) | 41353 | 0 | 216100 | 35566 | 86.0 | |
| Directed strength of lower limbs (kg) | 19460 | 0 | 72600 | 12540 | 64.4 | |
| Specific strength of lower limbs (kg) | 13887 | 0 | 156650 | 16096 | 115.9 | |
| Trunk strength (amount) | 15480 | 0 | 200000 | 21921.4 | 141.6 | |
| Upper body strength (kg) | 1102 | 0 | 24960 | 2121 | 192.5 | |
| Explosive strength of lower limbs (amount) | 274.7 | 0 | 1203 | 190.4 | 69.3 | |
| Explosive strength of upper limbs (amount) | 147.9 | 0 | 520 | 116.1 | 78.5 | |
| Technical exercises – walking pace (min) | 141.6 | 0 | 420 | 109.7 | 77.5 | |
| Technical exercises – running pace (min) | 172.9 | 0 | 920 | 135.7 | 78.4 | |
| Runs over 1-3 hurdles (amount) | 31.9 | 0 | 148 | 30.3 | 95.0 | |
| Runs over 4-7 hurdles (amount) | 56.5 | 0 | 188 | 51.6 | 91.3 | |
| Runs over 8-12 hurdles (amount) | 50.5 | 0 | 232 | 52.7 | 104.3 | |
| Hurdle runs in varied rhythm (amount) | 285.7 | 0 | 1020 | 208.7 | 73.0 |
– in accordance with the rule of introducing a qualitative variable of a “training period type” with the value of general preparation period, special preparation period and starting period was replaced with two variables, x4 and x5, holding the value of 1 or 0.
FIG. 1The model of predicting the result for 400-metres hurdles races.
FIG. 2Correlation between 500 m flat run and 400-metres hurdle races.
FIG. 3Prediction and training errors for ridge regression; red line marks the best model. inner axis represents the errors
FIG. 4Prediction and training errors for LASSO regression; red line marks the best model.
FIG. 5Prediction and training errors for elastic net regression.
FIG. 6Prediction and training errors for MLP with: (a) exp function, (b) tanh function; outer axis represents number of hidden neurons, inner axis represents the errors
Summary of results.
| Methods | ||
|---|---|---|
| OLS (ordinary least squares regression) | 0.72 | 0.57 |
| OLS with nonlinear part | 0.63 | 0.62 |
| Ridge regression ( | 0.71 | 0.57 |
| Ridge regression with nonlinear part | 0.61 | 0.60 |
| LASSO regression ( | 0.67 | 0.58 |
| LASSO regression with nonlinear part | 0.59 | |
| Elastic net regression ( | 0.67 | 0.58 |
| MLP (tanh) 26-1-1 | 0.73 | 0.56 |
| MLP (exp) 26-1-1 | 0.72 | 0.56 |
Note: * – network architecture (number of neurons in the following layers: input-hidden-output).