Selecting a sleep tracker from EEG-based, iteratively improved, low-cost multisensor, and actigraphy-only devices
- PMID: 38087674
- DOI: 10.1016/j.sleh.2023.11.005
Selecting a sleep tracker from EEG-based, iteratively improved, low-cost multisensor, and actigraphy-only devices
Abstract
Aims: Evaluate the performance of 6 wearable sleep trackers across 4 classes (EEG-based headband, research-grade actigraphy, iteratively improved consumer tracker, low-cost consumer tracker).
Focus technology: Dreem 3 headband, Actigraph GT9X, Oura Ring Gen3, Fitbit Sense, Xiaomi Mi Band 7, Axtro Fit3.
Reference technology: In-lab polysomnography with 3-reader, consensus sleep scoring.
Sample: Sixty participants (26 males) across 3 age groups (18-30, 31-50, and 51-70years).
Design: Overnight in a sleep laboratory from habitual sleep time to wake time.
Core analytics: Discrepancy and epoch-by-epoch analyses for sleep/wake (2-stage) and sleep-stage (4-stage; wake/light/deep/rapid eye movement) classification (devices vs. polysomnography).
Core outcomes: EEG-based Dreem performed the best (2-stage kappa=0.76, 4-stage kappa=0.76-0.86) with the lowest total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep onset latency, and wake after sleep onset discrepancies vs. polysomnography. This was followed by the iteratively improved consumer trackers: Oura (2-stage kappa=0.64, 4-stage kappa=0.55-0.70) and Fitbit (2-stage kappa=0.58, 4-stage kappa=0.45-0.60) which had comparable total sleep time and sleep efficiency discrepancies that outperformed accelerometry-only Actigraph (2-stage kappa=0.47). The low-cost consumer trackers had poorest overall performance (2-stage kappa<0.31, 4-stage kappa<0.33).
Important additional outcomes: Proportional biases were driven by nights with poorer sleep (longer sleep onset latencies and/or wake after sleep onset).
Core conclusion: EEG-based Dreem is recommended when evaluating poor quality sleep or when highest accuracy sleep-staging is required. Iteratively improved non-EEG sleep trackers (Oura, Fitbit) balance classification accuracy with well-tolerated, and economic deployment at-scale, and are recommended for studies involving mostly healthy sleepers. The low-cost trackers, can log time in bed but are not recommended for research use.
Keywords: Actigraphy; Consumer sleep trackers; Performance evaluation; Polysomnography; Sleep measurement; Wearable devices.
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of conflicts of interest Oura Health Oy funded the data collection for the evaluation of its new sleep staging algorithm (OSSA 2.0), but the company did not influence the design of the study, analyses, its interpretation or data presentation. All other equipment was contributed by the Sleep and Cognition Laboratory.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical