Performance of seven consumer sleep-tracking devices compared with polysomnography

Dec 30, 2020Sleep

How well seven popular sleep trackers measure sleep compared to standard sleep tests

AI simplified

Circadian Biology on OpenScience ↗PubMed ↗DOI ↗OA ↗

Abstract

Most consumer sleep-tracking devices performed as well as or better than in detecting sleep and wake.

Epoch-by-epoch sensitivity of all devices was high, with values at or above 0.93.
Specificity varied from low to medium, ranging between 0.18 and 0.54.
Performance in sleep stage comparisons was inconsistent across devices.
Devices generally performed worse during nights with disrupted sleep.
Findings suggest that many newer sleep-tracking devices may effectively track sleep and wake.

AI simplified

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Consumer sleep-tracking devices are widely used and becoming more technologically advanced, creating strong interest from researchers and clinicians for their possible use as alternatives to standard . We, therefore, tested the performance of many of the latest consumer sleep-tracking devices, alongside actigraphy, versus the gold-standard sleep assessment technique, (PSG).

METHODS: In total, 34 healthy young adults (22 women; 28.1 ± 3.9 years, mean ± SD) were tested on three consecutive nights (including a disrupted sleep condition) in a sleep laboratory with PSG, along with actigraphy (Philips Respironics Actiwatch 2) and a subset of consumer sleep-tracking devices. Altogether, four wearable (Fatigue Science Readiband, Fitbit Alta HR, Garmin Fenix 5S, Garmin Vivosmart 3) and three nonwearable (EarlySense Live, ResMed S+, SleepScore Max) devices were tested. Sleep/wake summary and epoch-by-epoch agreement measures were compared with PSG.

RESULTS: Most devices (Fatigue Science Readiband, Fitbit Alta HR, EarlySense Live, ResMed S+, SleepScore Max) performed as well as or better than actigraphy on sleep/wake performance measures, while the Garmin devices performed worse. Overall, epoch-by-epoch sensitivity was high (all ≥0.93), specificity was low-to-medium (0.18-0.54), sleep stage comparisons were mixed, and devices tended to perform worse on nights with poorer/disrupted sleep.

CONCLUSIONS: Consumer sleep-tracking devices exhibited high performance in detecting sleep, and most performed equivalent to (or better than) actigraphy in detecting wake. Device sleep stage assessments were inconsistent. Findings indicate that many newer sleep-tracking devices demonstrate promising performance for tracking sleep and wake. Devices should be tested in different populations and settings to further examine their wider validity and utility.

Key numbers

≥0.93

Sensitivity

Sensitivity for devices in detecting sleep epochs vs.

0.18 to 0.54

Specificity Range

Specificity for devices in detecting wake epochs vs.

Highest specificity

Fitbit Alta HR Performance

Fitbit Alta HR's performance in wake detection among tested devices

Full Text

We can’t show the full text here under this license. Use the link below to read it at the source.

View full text (PDF) ↗View full text ↗

Performance of seven consumer sleep-tracking devices compared with polysomnography

Abstract

Key numbers

Full Text

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the circadian biology brief

Abstract

Key numbers

Full Text

Related papers

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the circadian biology brief