STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the validity of an ambulatory electroencephalographic (EEG) monitor for the estimation of sleep continuity and architecture in healthy adults. METHODS: Healthy, good sleeping participants (n = 14) were fit with both an ambulatory EEG monitor (Sleep Profiler) and a full polysomnography (PSG) montage. EEG recordings were gathered from both devices on the same night, during which sleep was permitted uninterrupted for eight hours. The study was set in an inpatient clinical research suite. PSG and Sleep Profiler records were scored by a neurologist board certified in sleep medicine, blinded to record identification. Agreement between the scored PSG record, the physician-scored Sleep Profiler record, and the Sleep Profiler record scored by an automatic algorithm was evaluated for each sleep stage, with the PSG record serving as the reference. RESULTS: Results indicated strong percent agreement across stages. Kappa was strongest for Stage N3 and REM. Specificity was high for all stages; sensitivity was low for Wake and Stage N1, and high for Stage N2, Stage N3, and REM. Agreement indices improved for the manually scored Sleep Profiler record relative to the autoscore record. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the Sleep Profiler yields an EEG record with comparable sleep architecture estimates to PSG. Future studies should evaluate agreement between devices with a clinical sample that has greater periods of wake in order to better understand utility of this device for estimating sleep continuity indices, such as sleep onset latency and wake after sleep onset.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the validity of an ambulatory electroencephalographic (EEG) monitor for the estimation of sleep continuity and architecture in healthy adults. METHODS: Healthy, good sleepingparticipants (n = 14) were fit with both an ambulatory EEG monitor (Sleep Profiler) and a full polysomnography (PSG) montage. EEG recordings were gathered from both devices on the same night, during which sleep was permitted uninterrupted for eight hours. The study was set in an inpatient clinical research suite. PSG and Sleep Profiler records were scored by a neurologist board certified in sleep medicine, blinded to record identification. Agreement between the scored PSG record, the physician-scored Sleep Profiler record, and the Sleep Profiler record scored by an automatic algorithm was evaluated for each sleep stage, with the PSG record serving as the reference. RESULTS: Results indicated strong percent agreement across stages. Kappa was strongest for Stage N3 and REM. Specificity was high for all stages; sensitivity was low for Wake and Stage N1, and high for Stage N2, Stage N3, and REM. Agreement indices improved for the manually scored Sleep Profiler record relative to the autoscore record. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the Sleep Profiler yields an EEG record with comparable sleep architecture estimates to PSG. Future studies should evaluate agreement between devices with a clinical sample that has greater periods of wake in order to better understand utility of this device for estimating sleep continuity indices, such as sleep onset latency and wake after sleep onset.
Authors: Jack D Edinger; Michael H Bonnet; Richard R Bootzin; Karl Doghramji; Cynthia M Dorsey; Colin A Espie; Andrew O Jamieson; W Vaughn McCall; Charles M Morin; Edward J Stepanski Journal: Sleep Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Nancy A Collop; W McDowell Anderson; Brian Boehlecke; David Claman; Rochelle Goldberg; Daniel J Gottlieb; David Hudgel; Michael Sateia; Richard Schwab Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2007-12-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Patrick H Finan; Alexis E Whitton; Janelle E Letzen; Bethany Remeniuk; Mercedes L Robinson; Michael R Irwin; Diego A Pizzagalli; Michael T Smith Journal: Sleep Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Daniel J Levendowski; Luigi Ferini-Strambi; Charlene Gamaldo; Mindy Cetel; Robert Rosenberg; Philip R Westbrook Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Rui Zhang; Dardo Tomasi; Ehsan Shokri-Kojori; Peter Manza; Dana E Feldman; Danielle S Kroll; Catherine L Biesecker; Katherine L McPherson; Melanie Schwandt; Gene-Jack Wang; Corinde E Wiers; Nora D Volkow Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2022-06-26 Impact factor: 4.852
Authors: Scott J Fatt; Jessica E Beilharz; Michael Joubert; Chloe Wilson; Andrew R Lloyd; Uté Vollmer-Conna; Erin Cvejic Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Patrick H Finan; Chung Jung Mun; David H Epstein; William J Kowalczyk; Karran A Phillips; Daniel Agage; Michael T Smith; Kenzie L Preston Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 4.852
Authors: Jason D Stone; Lauren E Rentz; Jillian Forsey; Jad Ramadan; Rachel R Markwald; Victor S Finomore; Scott M Galster; Ali Rezai; Joshua A Hagen Journal: Nat Sci Sleep Date: 2020-10-27