Abstract
Consumer sleep trackers can provide useful insight into sleep and sleep patterns. However, large scale performance evaluation studies against direct sleep measures are needed to comprehensively understand sleep tracker accuracy. This study evaluated performance of an under-mattress sensor to estimate sleep and wake versus polysomnography, during multiple in-laboratory protocols in a large sample including individuals with and without sleep disorders and during day versus night sleep opportunities.
183 participants (51% male, mean[SD] age=45[18] years) attended the sleep laboratory for a research study that included simultaneous polysomnography and under-mattress sensor (Withings Sleep Analyzer [WSA]) recordings. Epoch-by-epoch analyses with confusion matrices were used to determine accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the WSA versus polysomnography. Bland-Altman plots examined bias in sleep duration, efficiency, onset-latency, and wake after sleep onset.
Overall WSA sleep-wake classification accuracy was 83%, sensitivity 95%, and specificity 37%. The WSA significantly overestimated total sleep time (48[81]minutes), Sleep efficiency (9[15]%), sleep onset latency (6[26]), and underestimated wake after sleep onset (54[78]), p<0.05. Accuracy and specificity were higher for night versus daytime sleep opportunities in healthy individuals (89% and 47% versus 82% and 26% respectively, p<0.05). Accuracy and sensitivity were also higher for healthy individuals (89% and 97%) versus those with sleep disorders (81% and 91%, p<0.05).
WSA performance is comparable to other consumer sleep trackers, with high sensitivity but poor specificity compared to polysomnography. Poorer accuracy and specificity during daytime versus night-time sleep opportunities is likely due to increased wake time and reduced sleep efficiency. Contactless, under-mattress sleep sensors show promise for accurate sleep monitoring, noting the tendency to over-estimate sleep particularly where wake time is high.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was not directly funded, but researcher time was supported by the Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship and the Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee/IRB of Flinders University HREC gave ethical approval for this work (5468-1). Ethics committee/IRB of SAC HREC gave ethical approval for this work (HREC/20/SAC/204). Ethics committee/IRB of SAC HREC gave ethical approval for this work (2021/HRE00178). Ethics committee/IRB of Flinders University HREC gave ethical approval for this work (4648). Ethics committee/IRB of SAC HREC gave ethical approval for this work (HREC/20/SAC/91). Ethics committee/IRB of Bellberry HREC gave ethical approval for this work (2021-08-925-FR-1). Ethics committee/IRB of Bellberry HREC gave ethical approval for this work (2023-04-408-AC). Ethics committee/IRB of CALHN HREC gave ethical approval for this work (12326). Ethics committee/IRB of SESLHD HREC gave ethical approval for this work (18/047). Ethics committee/IRB of Flinders University HREC gave ethical approval for this work (4965). Ethics committee/IRB of Flinders University HREC gave ethical approval for this work (5655). Ethics committee/IRB of Bellberry HREC gave ethical approval for this work (2021-10-1177-A-1). Ethics committee/IRB of Flinders University HREC gave ethical approval for this work (4441).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Co-senior authors
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
