Blog
About

17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Reliability of Sleep Measures from Four Personal Health Monitoring Devices Compared to Research-Based Actigraphy and Polysomnography

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Polysomnography (PSG) is the “gold standard” for monitoring sleep. Alternatives to PSG are of interest for clinical, research, and personal use. Wrist-worn actigraph devices have been utilized in research settings for measures of sleep for over two decades. Whether sleep measures from commercially available devices are similarly valid is unknown. We sought to determine the validity of five wearable devices: Basis Health Tracker, Misfit Shine, Fitbit Flex, Withings Pulse O2, and a research-based actigraph, Actiwatch Spectrum. We used Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests to assess differences between devices relative to PSG and correlational analysis to assess the strength of the relationship. Data loss was greatest for Fitbit and Misfit. For all devices, we found no difference and strong correlation of total sleep time with PSG. Sleep efficiency differed from PSG for Withings, Misfit, Fitbit, and Basis, while Actiwatch mean values did not differ from that of PSG. Only mean values of sleep efficiency (time asleep/time in bed) from Actiwatch correlated with PSG, yet this correlation was weak. Light sleep time differed from PSG (nREM1 + nREM2) for all devices. Measures of Deep sleep time did not differ from PSG (SWS + REM) for Basis. These results reveal the current strengths and limitations in sleep estimates produced by personal health monitoring devices and point to a need for future development.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study

          Background Technological advances have seen a burgeoning industry for accelerometer-based wearable activity monitors targeted at the consumer market. The purpose of this study was to determine the convergent validity of a selection of consumer-level accelerometer-based activity monitors. Methods 21 healthy adults wore seven consumer-level activity monitors (Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip, Jawbone UP, Misfit Shine, Nike Fuelband, Striiv Smart Pedometer and Withings Pulse) and two research-grade accelerometers/multi-sensor devices (BodyMedia SenseWear, and ActiGraph GT3X+) for 48-hours. Participants went about their daily life in free-living conditions during data collection. The validity of the consumer-level activity monitors relative to the research devices for step count, moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), sleep and total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) was quantified using Bland-Altman analysis, median absolute difference and Pearson’s correlation. Results All consumer-level activity monitors correlated strongly (r > 0.8) with research-grade devices for step count and sleep time, but only moderately-to-strongly for TDEE (r = 0.74-0.81) and MVPA (r = 0.52-0.91). Median absolute differences were generally modest for sleep and steps (<10% of research device mean values for the majority of devices) moderate for TDEE (<30% of research device mean values), and large for MVPA (26-298%). Across the constructs examined, the Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip and Withings Pulse performed most strongly. Conclusions In free-living conditions, the consumer-level activity monitors showed strong validity for the measurement of steps and sleep duration, and moderate valid for measurement of TDEE and MVPA. Validity for each construct ranged widely between devices, with the Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip and Withings Pulse being the strongest performers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers

            Background Activity trackers can potentially stimulate users to increase their physical activity behavior. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers for measuring step count in both laboratory and free-living conditions. Method Healthy adult volunteers (n = 33) walked twice on a treadmill (4.8 km/h) for 30 min while wearing ten different activity trackers (i.e. Lumoback, Fitbit Flex, Jawbone Up, Nike+ Fuelband SE, Misfit Shine, Withings Pulse, Fitbit Zip, Omron HJ-203, Yamax Digiwalker SW-200 and Moves mobile application). In free-living conditions, 56 volunteers wore the same activity trackers for one working day. Test-retest reliability was analyzed with the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Validity was evaluated by comparing each tracker with the gold standard (Optogait system for laboratory and ActivPAL for free-living conditions), using paired samples t-tests, mean absolute percentage errors, correlations and Bland-Altman plots. Results Test-retest analysis revealed high reliability for most trackers except for the Omron (ICC .14), Moves app (ICC .37) and Nike+ Fuelband (ICC .53). The mean absolute percentage errors of the trackers in laboratory and free-living conditions respectively, were: Lumoback (−0.2, −0.4), Fibit Flex (−5.7, 3.7), Jawbone Up (−1.0, 1.4), Nike+ Fuelband (−18, −24), Misfit Shine (0.2, 1.1), Withings Pulse (−0.5, −7.9), Fitbit Zip (−0.3, 1.2), Omron (2.5, −0.4), Digiwalker (−1.2, −5.9), and Moves app (9.6, −37.6). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that the limits of agreement varied from 46 steps (Fitbit Zip) to 2422 steps (Nike+ Fuelband) in the laboratory condition, and 866 steps (Fitbit Zip) to 5150 steps (Moves app) in the free-living condition. Conclusion The reliability and validity of most trackers for measuring step count is good. The Fitbit Zip is the most valid whereas the reliability and validity of the Nike+ Fuelband is low.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Movement toward a novel activity monitoring device.

              Although polysomnography is necessary for diagnosis of most sleep disorders, it is also expensive, time-consuming, intrusive, and interferes with sleep. Field-based activity monitoring is increasingly used as an alternative measure that can be used to answer certain clinical and research questions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of a novel activity monitoring device (Fitbit) compared to both polysomnography and standard actigraphy (Actiwatch-64). To test validity, simultaneous Fitbit and actigraph were worn during standard overnight polysomnography by 24 healthy adults at the West Virginia University sleep research laboratory. To test inter-Fitbit reliability, three participants also wore two of the Fitbit devices overnight at home. Fitbit showed high intradevice reliability = 96.5-99.1. Fitbit and actigraph differed significantly on recorded total sleep time and sleep efficiency between each other and polysomnography. Bland-Altman plots indicated that both Fitbit and actigraph overestimated sleep efficiency and total sleep time. Sensitivity of both Fitbit and actigraphy for accurately identifying sleep was high within all sleep stages and during arousals; specificity of both Fitbit and actigraph for accurately identifying wake was poor. Specificity of actigraph was higher except for wake before sleep onset; sensitivity of Fitbit was higher in all sleep stages and during arousals. The web-based Fitbit, available at a markedly reduced price and with several convenience factors compared to standard actigraphy, may be an acceptable activity measurement instrument for use with normative populations. However, Fitbit has the same specificity limitations as actigraphy; both devices consistently misidentify wake as sleep and thus overestimate both sleep time and quality. Use of the Fitbit will also require specific validation before it can be used to assess disordered populations and or different age groups.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Sensors (Basel)
                Sensors (Basel)
                sensors
                Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
                MDPI
                1424-8220
                05 May 2016
                May 2016
                : 16
                : 5
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Neuroscience & Behavior Program, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 135 Hicks Way, Amherst, MA 01003, USA; jmantua@ 123456cns.umass.edu
                [2 ]Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 135 Hicks Way, Amherst, MA 01003, USA; ngravel007@ 123456gmail.com
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: rspencer@ 123456psych.umass.edu ; Tel.: +1-413-545-5987; Fax: +1-413-545-0996
                Article
                sensors-16-00646
                10.3390/s16050646
                4883337
                27164110
                © 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

                This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                Categories
                Article

                Biomedical engineering

                measurement, actigraphy, wearables, validation, polysomnography

                Comments

                Comment on this article