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 actigraphy. We, therefore, tested the performance of many of the latest consumer sleep-tracking devices, alongside actigraphy, versus the gold-standard sleep assessment technique, polysomnography (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.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose Previous studies have found that many commercial wearable devices can accurately track sleep-wake patterns in laboratory or home settings. However, nearly all previous studies tested devices under conditions with fixed time in bed (TIB) and during nighttime sleep episodes only. Despite its relevance to shift workers and others with irregular sleep schedules, it is largely unknown how devices track daytime sleep. Therefore, we tested the sleep-tracking performance of four commercial wearable devices during unrestricted home daytime sleep. Participants and Methods Participants were 16 healthy young adults (6 men, 10 women; 26.6 ± 4.6 years, mean ± SD) with habitual daytime sleep schedules. Participants slept at home for 1 week under unrestricted conditions (ie, self-selecting TIB) using a set of four commercial wearable devices and completed reference sleep logs. Wearables included the Fatigue Science ReadiBand, Fitbit Inspire HR, Oura Ring, and Polar Vantage V Titan. Daytime sleep episode TIB biases and frequencies of missed and false-positive daytime sleep episodes were examined. Results TIB bias was low in general for all devices on most daytime sleep episodes, but some exhibited large biases (eg, >1 h). Total missed daytime sleep episodes were as follows: Fatigue Science: 3.6%; Fitbit: 4.8%; Oura: 6.0%; Polar: 37.3%. Missed episodes occurred most often when TIB was short (eg, naps <4 h). Conclusion When daytime sleep episodes were recorded, the devices generally exhibited similar performance for tracking TIB (ie, most episodes had low bias). However, the devices failed to detect some daytime episodes, which occurred most often when TIB was short, but varied across devices (especially Polar, which missed over one-third of episodes). Findings suggest that accurate daytime sleep tracking is largely achievable with commercial wearable devices. However, performance differences for missed recordings suggest that some devices vary in reliability (especially for naps), but improvements could likely be made with changes to algorithm sensitivities.