Rachel R Markwald1, Sara C Bessman1, Seth A Reini1, Sean P A Drummond2,3. 1. Warfighter Performance Department, Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, CA. 2. Psychiatry Department, University of California, San Diego, CA. 3. Psychology Service, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Portable and automated sleep monitoring technology is becoming widely available to consumers, and one wireless system (WS) has recently surfaced as a research tool for sleep and sleep staging assessment outside the hospital/laboratory; however, previous research findings indicate low sensitivity for wakefulness detection. Because difficulty discriminating between wake and sleep is likely to affect staging performance, we sought to further evaluate the WS by comparing it to the gold-standard polysomnography (PSG) and actigraphy (ACT) for overall sleep/wakefulness detection and sleep staging, within high and low sleep efficiency sleepers. METHODS: Twenty-nine healthy adults (eight females) underwent concurrent WS, PSG, and ACT assessment in an overnight laboratory study. Epoch-by-epoch agreement was determined by comparing sleep/wakefulness decisions between the WS to both PSG and ACT, and for detection of light, deep, and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep stages between the WS and PSG. RESULTS: Sensitivity for wakefulness was low (40%), and an overestimation of total sleep time and underestimation of wake after sleep onset was observed. Prevalence and bias adjusted kappa statistic indicated moderate-to-high agreement between the WS and PSG for sleep staging. However, upon further inspection, WS performance varied by sleep efficiency, with the best performance during high sleep efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of the WS as a sleep monitoring device over ACT is the ability to assess sleep stages, and our findings suggest this benefit is only realized within high sleep efficiency. Care should be taken to collect data under conditions where this is expected.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Portable and automated sleep monitoring technology is becoming widely available to consumers, and one wireless system (WS) has recently surfaced as a research tool for sleep and sleep staging assessment outside the hospital/laboratory; however, previous research findings indicate low sensitivity for wakefulness detection. Because difficulty discriminating between wake and sleep is likely to affect staging performance, we sought to further evaluate the WS by comparing it to the gold-standard polysomnography (PSG) and actigraphy (ACT) for overall sleep/wakefulness detection and sleep staging, within high and low sleep efficiency sleepers. METHODS: Twenty-nine healthy adults (eight females) underwent concurrent WS, PSG, and ACT assessment in an overnight laboratory study. Epoch-by-epoch agreement was determined by comparing sleep/wakefulness decisions between the WS to both PSG and ACT, and for detection of light, deep, and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep stages between the WS and PSG. RESULTS: Sensitivity for wakefulness was low (40%), and an overestimation of total sleep time and underestimation of wake after sleep onset was observed. Prevalence and bias adjusted kappa statistic indicated moderate-to-high agreement between the WS and PSG for sleep staging. However, upon further inspection, WS performance varied by sleep efficiency, with the best performance during high sleep efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of the WS as a sleep monitoring device over ACT is the ability to assess sleep stages, and our findings suggest this benefit is only realized within high sleep efficiency. Care should be taken to collect data under conditions where this is expected.
Authors: Lorenzo Tonetti; Nicola Cellini; Massimiliano de Zambotti; Marco Fabbri; Monica Martoni; Stephan E Fábregas; Luciano Stegagno; Vincenzo Natale Journal: Physiol Behav Date: 2013-05-26
Authors: Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Roger Cole; Cathy Alessi; Mark Chambers; William Moorcroft; Charles P Pollak Journal: Sleep Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Kelly Glazer Baron; Jennifer Duffecy; Mark A Berendsen; Ivy Cheung Mason; Emily G Lattie; Natalie C Manalo Journal: Sleep Med Rev Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 11.609
Authors: Patricia Concheiro-Moscoso; Francisco José Martínez-Martínez; María Del Carmen Miranda-Duro; Thais Pousada; Laura Nieto-Riveiro; Betania Groba; Francisco Javier Mejuto-Muiño; Javier Pereira Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 3.390