PURPOSE: The commercial market is saturated with technologies that claim to collect proficient, free-living sleep measurements despite a severe lack of independent third-party evaluations. Therefore, the present study evaluated the accuracy of various commercial sleep technologies during in-home sleeping conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data collection spanned 98 separate nights of ad libitum sleep from five healthy adults. Prior to bedtime, participants utilized nine popular sleep devices while concurrently wearing a previously validated electroencephalography (EEG)-based device. Data collected from the commercial devices were extracted for later comparison against EEG to determine degrees of accuracy. Sleep and wake summary outcomes as well as sleep staging metrics were evaluated, where available, for each device. RESULTS: Total sleep time (TST), total wake time (TWT), and sleep efficiency (SE) were measured with greater accuracy (lower percent errors) and limited bias by Fitbit Ionic [mean absolute percent error, bias (95% confidence interval); TST: 9.90%, 0.25 (-0.11, 0.61); TWT: 25.64%, -0.17 (-0.28, -0.06); SE: 3.49%, 0.65 (-0.82, 2.12)] and Oura smart ring [TST: 7.39%, 0.19 (0.04, 0.35); TWT: 36.29%, -0.18 (-0.31, -0.04); SE: 5.42%, 1.66 (0.17, 3.15)], whereas all other devices demonstrated a propensity to over or underestimate at least one if not all of the aforementioned sleep metrics. No commercial sleep technology appeared to accurately quantify sleep stages. CONCLUSION: Generally speaking, commercial sleep technologies displayed lower error and bias values when quantifying sleep/wake states as compared to sleep staging durations. Still, these findings revealed that there is a remarkably high degree of variability in the accuracy of commercial sleep technologies, which further emphasizes that continuous evaluations of newly developed sleep technologies are vital. End-users may then be able to determine more accurately which sleep device is most suited for their desired application(s).
PURPOSE: The commercial market is saturated with technologies that claim to collect proficient, free-living sleep measurements despite a severe lack of independent third-party evaluations. Therefore, the present study evaluated the accuracy of various commercial sleep technologies during in-home sleeping conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data collection spanned 98 separate nights of ad libitum sleep from five healthy adults. Prior to bedtime, participants utilized nine popular sleep devices while concurrently wearing a previously validated electroencephalography (EEG)-based device. Data collected from the commercial devices were extracted for later comparison against EEG to determine degrees of accuracy. Sleep and wake summary outcomes as well as sleep staging metrics were evaluated, where available, for each device. RESULTS: Total sleep time (TST), total wake time (TWT), and sleep efficiency (SE) were measured with greater accuracy (lower percent errors) and limited bias by Fitbit Ionic [mean absolute percent error, bias (95% confidence interval); TST: 9.90%, 0.25 (-0.11, 0.61); TWT: 25.64%, -0.17 (-0.28, -0.06); SE: 3.49%, 0.65 (-0.82, 2.12)] and Oura smart ring [TST: 7.39%, 0.19 (0.04, 0.35); TWT: 36.29%, -0.18 (-0.31, -0.04); SE: 5.42%, 1.66 (0.17, 3.15)], whereas all other devices demonstrated a propensity to over or underestimate at least one if not all of the aforementioned sleep metrics. No commercial sleep technology appeared to accurately quantify sleep stages. CONCLUSION: Generally speaking, commercial sleep technologies displayed lower error and bias values when quantifying sleep/wake states as compared to sleep staging durations. Still, these findings revealed that there is a remarkably high degree of variability in the accuracy of commercial sleep technologies, which further emphasizes that continuous evaluations of newly developed sleep technologies are vital. End-users may then be able to determine more accurately which sleep device is most suited for their desired application(s).
Authors: Nathaniel F Watson; M Safwan Badr; Gregory Belenky; Donald L Bliwise; Orfeu M Buxton; Daniel Buysse; David F Dinges; James Gangwisch; Michael A Grandner; Clete Kushida; Raman K Malhotra; Jennifer L Martin; Sanjay R Patel; Stuart F Quan; Esra Tasali Journal: Sleep Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Christopher M Depner; Philip C Cheng; Jaime K Devine; Seema Khosla; Massimiliano de Zambotti; Rébecca Robillard; Andrew Vakulin; Sean P A Drummond Journal: Sleep Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Massimiliano de Zambotti; Nicola Cellini; Aimée Goldstone; Ian M Colrain; Fiona C Baker Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Sarah Berryhill; Christopher J Morton; Adam Dean; Adam Berryhill; Natalie Provencio-Dean; Salma I Patel; Lauren Estep; Daniel Combs; Saif Mashaqi; Lynn B Gerald; Jerry A Krishnan; Sairam Parthasarathy Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Garrett I Ash; Matthew Stults-Kolehmainen; Michael A Busa; Allison E Gaffey; Konstantinos Angeloudis; Borja Muniz-Pardos; Robert Gregory; Robert A Huggins; Nancy S Redeker; Stuart A Weinzimer; Lauren A Grieco; Kate Lyden; Esmeralda Megally; Ioannis Vogiatzis; LaurieAnn Scher; Xinxin Zhu; Julien S Baker; Cynthia Brandt; Michael S Businelle; Lisa M Fucito; Stephanie Griggs; Robert Jarrin; Bobak J Mortazavi; Temiloluwa Prioleau; Walter Roberts; Elias K Spanakis; Laura M Nally; Andre Debruyne; Norbert Bachl; Fabio Pigozzi; Farzin Halabchi; Dimakatso A Ramagole; Dina C Janse van Rensburg; Bernd Wolfarth; Chiara Fossati; Sandra Rozenstoka; Kumpei Tanisawa; Mats Börjesson; José Antonio Casajus; Alex Gonzalez-Aguero; Irina Zelenkova; Jeroen Swart; Gamze Gursoy; William Meyerson; Jason Liu; Dov Greenbaum; Yannis P Pitsiladis; Mark B Gerstein Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Stijn A A Massar; Alyssa S C Ng; Chun Siong Soon; Ju Lynn Ong; Xin Yu Chua; Nicholas I Y N Chee; Tih Shih Lee; Michael W L Chee Journal: Sleep Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Elaine Y Wan; Hamid Ghanbari; Nazem Akoum; Zachi Itzhak Attia; Samuel J Asirvatham; Eugene H Chung; Lilas Dagher; Sana M Al-Khatib; G Stuart Mendenhall; David D McManus; Rajeev K Pathak; Rod S Passman; Nicholas S Peters; David S Schwartzman; Emma Svennberg; Khaldoun G Tarakji; Mintu P Turakhia; Anthony Trela; Hirad Yarmohammadi; Nassir F Marrouche Journal: Cardiovasc Digit Health J Date: 2021-07-10
Authors: Shohreh Ghorbani; Hosein Aghayan Golkashani; Nicholas I Y N Chee; Teck Boon Teo; Andrew Roshan Dicom; Gizem Yilmaz; Ruth L F Leong; Ju Lynn Ong; Michael W L Chee Journal: Nat Sci Sleep Date: 2022-04-14
Authors: Stijn A A Massar; Xin Yu Chua; Chun Siong Soon; Alyssa S C Ng; Ju Lynn Ong; Nicholas I Y N Chee; Tih Shih Lee; Arko Ghosh; Michael W L Chee Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2021-06-02