Literature DB >> 35415400

Validity of Consumer Activity Wristbands and Wearable EEG for Measuring Overall Sleep Parameters and Sleep Structure in Free-Living Conditions.

Zilu Liang1, Mario Alberto Chapa Martell2.   

Abstract

Consumer sleep tracking technologies offer an unobtrusive and cost-efficient way to monitor sleep in free-living conditions. Technological advances in hardware and software have significantly improved the functionality of the new gadgets that recently appeared in the market. However, whether the latest gadgets can provide valid measurements on overall sleep parameters and sleep structure such as deep and REM sleep has not been examined. In this study, we aimed to investigate the validity of the latest consumer sleep tracking devices including an activity wristband Fitbit Charge 2 and a wearable EEG-based eye mask Neuroon in comparison to a medical sleep monitor. First, we confirmed that Fitbit Charge 2 can automatically detect the onset and offset of sleep with reasonable accuracy. Second, analysis found that both consumer devices produced comparable results in measuring total sleep duration and sleep efficiency compared to the medical device. In addition, Fitbit accurately measured the number of awakenings, while Neuroon with good signal quality had satisfactory performance on total awake time and sleep onset latency. However, measuring sleep structure including light, deep, and REM sleep remains to be challenging for both consumer devices. Third, greater discrepancies were observed between Neuroon and the medical device in nights with more disrupted sleep and when the signal quality was poor, but no trend was observed in Fitbit Charge 2. This study suggests that current consumer sleep tracking technologies may be immature for diagnosing sleep disorders, but they are reasonably satisfactory for general purpose and non-clinical use. © Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EEG; Fitbit; Neuroon; Self-tracking; Sleep; Validation; Wearable devices; mHealth

Year:  2018        PMID: 35415400      PMCID: PMC8982823          DOI: 10.1007/s41666-018-0013-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Healthc Inform Res        ISSN: 2509-498X


  56 in total

1.  Direct comparison of two actigraphy devices with polysomnographically recorded naps in healthy young adults.

Authors:  Nicola Cellini; Matthew P Buman; Elizabeth A McDevitt; Ashley A Ricker; Sara C Mednick
Journal:  Chronobiol Int       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 2.877

Review 2.  Consumer Sleep Technologies: A Review of the Landscape.

Authors:  Ping-Ru T Ko; Julie A Kientz; Eun Kyoung Choe; Matthew Kay; Carol A Landis; Nathaniel F Watson
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 4.062

3.  Sleep health: can we define it? Does it matter?

Authors:  Daniel J Buysse
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2014-01-01       Impact factor: 5.849

4.  Direct comparison of two new actigraphs and polysomnography in children and adolescents.

Authors:  Lisa J Meltzer; Colleen M Walsh; Joel Traylor; Anna M L Westin
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2012-01-01       Impact factor: 5.849

5.  Objective vs. subjective measurements of sleep in depressed insomniacs: first night effect or reverse first night effect?

Authors:  Catherine McCall; W Vaughn McCall
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 4.062

6.  Movement toward a novel activity monitoring device.

Authors:  Hawley E Montgomery-Downs; Salvatore P Insana; Jonathan A Bond
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2011-10-06       Impact factor: 2.816

7.  Clinical significance of night-to-night sleep variability in insomnia.

Authors:  Sooyeon Suh; Sara Nowakowski; Rebecca A Bernert; Jason C Ong; Allison T Siebern; Claire L Dowdle; Rachel Manber
Journal:  Sleep Med       Date:  2012-02-20       Impact factor: 3.492

Review 8.  Sleep Tracking, Wearable Technology, and Opportunities for Research and Clinical Care.

Authors:  Anita Valanju Shelgikar; Patricia F Anderson; Marc R Stephens
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 9.410

9.  Comparison of a single-channel EEG sleep study to polysomnography.

Authors:  Brendan P Lucey; Jennifer S Mcleland; Cristina D Toedebusch; Jill Boyd; John C Morris; Eric C Landsness; Kelvin Yamada; David M Holtzman
Journal:  J Sleep Res       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 3.981

10.  Agreement rates between actigraphy, diary, and questionnaire for children's sleep patterns.

Authors:  Helene Werner; Luciano Molinari; Caroline Guyer; Oskar G Jenni
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  2008-04
View more
  1 in total

1.  Agreement of Sleep Measures-A Comparison between a Sleep Diary and Three Consumer Wearable Devices.

Authors:  Kristina Klier; Matthias Wagner
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 3.847

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.