Skip to main content
Log in

A comparison of radio-frequency biomotion sensors and actigraphy versus polysomnography for the assessment of sleep in normal subjects

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sleep and Breathing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to compare the absolute performance of three noncontact sleep measurement devices for measuring sleep parameters in normal subjects against polysomnography and to assess their relative performance.

Methods

The devices investigated were two noncontact radio-frequency biomotion sensors (SleepMinder (SM) and SleepDesign (HSL-101)) and an actigraphy-based system (Actiwatch). Overnight polysomnography measurements were carried out in 20 normal subjects, with simultaneous assessment of sleep parameters using the three devices. The parameters measured included total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency (SE), sleep-onset latency (SOL), and wake-after-sleep onset (WASO). The per-epoch agreement level for sleep/wake distinction was evaluated.

Results

The TSTs reported by the three devices were 426 ± 34, 434 ± 22, and 441 ± 16 min, for the SM, HSL-101, and Actiwatch, respectively, against polysomnogram (PSG)-reported TST of 391 ± 49 min. The SOLs were 10 ± 10, 5 ± 6, and 3 ± 2 min for the SM, HSL-101 and Actiwatch, respectively against PSG SOL of 19 ± 13 min. The WASO times were 46 ± 33, 43 ± 22, and 38 ± 17 min, as against PSG-reported 69 ± 46 min. All three devices had a statistically significant bias to overestimate sleep time and underestimate WASO and SOL compared with PSG. The performance of the three devices was basically equivalent, with only minor interdevice differences. The overall per-epoch agreement levels were 86 % for the SM, 86 % for the HSL-101, and 85 % for the Actiwatch.

Conclusions

Noncontact biomotion approaches to sleep measurement provided reasonable estimates of TST, but with a bias to over-estimation of sleep. The radio-frequency biomotion sensors provided similar accuracies for sleep/wake determination in normal subjects as the actigraph used in this study and slightly improved estimates of TST, SOL, and WASO.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blood ML, Sack RL, Percy DC, Pen JC (1997) A comparison of sleep detection by wrist actigraphy, behavioural response, and polysomnography. Sleep 20:388–395

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kushida CA, Chang A, Gadkary C, Guilleminault C, Carrillo O, Dement WC (2001) Comparison of actigraphic, polysomnographic, and subjective assessment of sleep parameters in sleep-disordered patients. Sleep Med 2:389–396

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Morgenthaler T, Alessi C, Friedman L, Owens J, Kapur V, Boehlecke B et al (2007) Practice parameters for the use of actigraphy in the assessment of sleep and sleep disorders: an update for 2007. Sleep 30:519–529

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. de Souza L, Benedito-Silva AA, Pires ML, Poyares D, Tufik S, Calil HM (2003) Further validation of actigraphy for sleep studies. Sleep 26:81–85

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hedner J, Pillar G, Pittman SD, Zou D, Grote L, White DP (2004) A novel adaptive wrist actigraphy algorithm for sleep–wake assessment in sleep apnea patients. Sleep 27:1560–1566

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sivertsen B, Omvik S, Havik OE, Pallesen S, Bjorvatn B, Nielsen GH et al (2006) A comparison of actigraphy and polysomnography in older adults treated for chronic primary insomnia. Sleep 29:1353–1358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Paquet J, Kawinska A, Carrier J (2007) Wake detection capacity of actigraphy during sleep. Sleep 30:1362–1369

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Blackwell T, Ancoli-Israel S, Redline S, Stone K (2011) Factors that may influence the classification of sleep-wake by wrist actigraphy: the MrOS sleep study. J Clin Sleep Med 7(4):357–375

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tryon WW (2004) Issues of validity in actigraphic sleep assessment. Sleep 27:158–165

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Blackwell T, Redline S, Ancoli-Israel S, Schneider JL, Surovec S, Johnson NL et al (2008) Comparison of sleep parameters from actigraphy and polysomnography in older women: the SOF study. Sleep 31:283–291

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gagnadoux F, Nguyen XL, Rakotonanahary D, Vidal S, Fleury B (2004) Wrist-actigraphic estimation of sleep time under nCPAP treatment in sleep apnoea patients. Eur Respir J 23:891–895

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Shouldice RB, Heneghan C, Petres G, Zaffaroni A, Boyle P, McNicholas W, de Chazal P (2010) Real time breathing rate estimation from a non contact biosensor. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2010:630–633

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. de Chazal P, Fox N, O’Hare E, Heneghan C, Zaffaroni A, Boyle P et al (2011) Sleep/wake measurement using a non-contact biomotion sensor. J Sleep Res 20:356–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Iber C, Ancoli-Israel S, Chessman A, and Quan SF (2007) The AASM manual for the scoring of sleep and associated events. American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

  15. Krouwer JS (2008) Why Bland and Altman plots should use X and not (Y + X)/2 when X is a reference method. Stat Med 27:778–780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lichstein KL, Stone KC, Donaldson J, Sidney DN, Soeffing JP, Murray D, Lester KW, Aguillard N (2006) Actigraphy validation with insomnia. Sleep 29(2):232–239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Montgomery-Downs HE, Insana SP, Bond JA (2012) Movement toward a novel activity monitoring device. Sleep Breath 16:913–917

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

Emer O’Hare, David Flanagan, and Conor Heneghan are either present or past employees of ResMed Sensor Technologies. Equipment was provided free of charge by ResMed Sensor Technologies to Advanced Sleep Research for the purpose of this study. Thomas Penzel has received grants from Apnex, ImThera, Hoffrichter, Resmed, Philips, Somnomedics, Itamar, Weinmann. He is a shareholder of Advanced Sleep Research, Somnico, and The Siestagroup GmbH. For Carmen Garcia and Daniela Frohberg, there are no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Conor Heneghan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Hare, E., Flanagan, D., Penzel, T. et al. A comparison of radio-frequency biomotion sensors and actigraphy versus polysomnography for the assessment of sleep in normal subjects. Sleep Breath 19, 91–98 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-014-0967-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-014-0967-z

Keywords

Navigation