Javascript must be enabled to continue!
0299 An Examination of Discrepancies in Sleep Device Data Captured by Sleep Ring, Fitbit, AndActigraphy
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Introduction
Wearable devices have improved access to sleep data by empowering patients with greater control over their information. However, the choice of the best wearable for sleep measurement remains uncertain. This study investigated variations in sleep data collected by Sleep Ring, Fitbit, and Actigraphy in a diverse US group of Black adults.
Methods
Wearables descriptive statistics were calculated for sleep efficiency (% by time in bed/ time sleep), REM duration (in minutes), awakening (count), and total sleep duration (in minutes) where data was available. One-sample t-tests were conducted for sleep efficiency (Sleep Ring and Actigraphy), REM duration (Sleep Ring and Fitbit), and awakening (Fitbit and Actigraphy). ANOVA was conducted for total sleep duration (Sleep Ring, Fitbit, Actigraphy). Significance was specified as α=0.05.
Results
Participants (Sleep Ring N=199, Fitbit N=147, Actigraphy N=202) were predominantly female (71%, Mage=48.9) compared to male (28%, Mage=50.2). Using the Insomnia Severity Index, 35% were insignificant, 37% met subthreshold, 23% exhibited moderate severity, and 5% reported severe insomnia. Sleep efficiency for Sleep Ring (M=77%, SD=10.4; t(198)=104.6, p<.001) was significantly different than Actigraphy (M=93%, SD=3.3; t(201)= 397.7, p=<.001). REM duration for Sleep Ring (M=62 minutes, SD=29; t(198)=30.0, p<.001) was also significantly different Fitbit (M=70 minutes, SD=26; t(142)= 31.6, p<.001). Additionally, there was a significant difference in awakening count in Fitbit (M=15 times, SD 7; t(146)=26.6, p<.001) compared to Actigraphy (M=9 times, SD=4; t(201)= 28.7, p<.001). ANOVA indicated an effect of sex on sleep duration for all devices: Sleep Ring [M=368 minutes, SD=106; F(1,197)= 5.4,p=.021], Fitbit [M=305, SD=89; F(1,145)=13.4,p<.001] and Actigraphy [M=374 minutes, SD=163; F(1,198)=4.9,p=.027).
Conclusion
Differences among wearable devices exist. Actigraphy may overestimate sleep efficiency, while Sleep Ring may provide poor estimates. REM duration is similar in Sleep Ring and Fitbit but more variable in Sleep Ring. Sleep duration ranked highest in Actigraphy, but also exhibited the highest variance/deviation, followed by Sleep Ring and Fitbit. Fitbit is more sensitive in detecting awakenings compared to Actigraphy. Future research should exploresleep health parameters across wearable devices to ensure accuracy in Blacks, considering discrepancies in metrics potentially due to differences in skin tone and the impact of refractory lights
Support (if any)
NIH R25HL10-5444; R01HL142066 and R01AG067523.
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Title: 0299 An Examination of Discrepancies in Sleep Device Data Captured by Sleep Ring, Fitbit, AndActigraphy
Description:
Abstract
Introduction
Wearable devices have improved access to sleep data by empowering patients with greater control over their information.
However, the choice of the best wearable for sleep measurement remains uncertain.
This study investigated variations in sleep data collected by Sleep Ring, Fitbit, and Actigraphy in a diverse US group of Black adults.
Methods
Wearables descriptive statistics were calculated for sleep efficiency (% by time in bed/ time sleep), REM duration (in minutes), awakening (count), and total sleep duration (in minutes) where data was available.
One-sample t-tests were conducted for sleep efficiency (Sleep Ring and Actigraphy), REM duration (Sleep Ring and Fitbit), and awakening (Fitbit and Actigraphy).
ANOVA was conducted for total sleep duration (Sleep Ring, Fitbit, Actigraphy).
Significance was specified as α=0.
05.
Results
Participants (Sleep Ring N=199, Fitbit N=147, Actigraphy N=202) were predominantly female (71%, Mage=48.
9) compared to male (28%, Mage=50.
2).
Using the Insomnia Severity Index, 35% were insignificant, 37% met subthreshold, 23% exhibited moderate severity, and 5% reported severe insomnia.
Sleep efficiency for Sleep Ring (M=77%, SD=10.
4; t(198)=104.
6, p<.
001) was significantly different than Actigraphy (M=93%, SD=3.
3; t(201)= 397.
7, p=<.
001).
REM duration for Sleep Ring (M=62 minutes, SD=29; t(198)=30.
0, p<.
001) was also significantly different Fitbit (M=70 minutes, SD=26; t(142)= 31.
6, p<.
001).
Additionally, there was a significant difference in awakening count in Fitbit (M=15 times, SD 7; t(146)=26.
6, p<.
001) compared to Actigraphy (M=9 times, SD=4; t(201)= 28.
7, p<.
001).
ANOVA indicated an effect of sex on sleep duration for all devices: Sleep Ring [M=368 minutes, SD=106; F(1,197)= 5.
4,p=.
021], Fitbit [M=305, SD=89; F(1,145)=13.
4,p<.
001] and Actigraphy [M=374 minutes, SD=163; F(1,198)=4.
9,p=.
027).
Conclusion
Differences among wearable devices exist.
Actigraphy may overestimate sleep efficiency, while Sleep Ring may provide poor estimates.
REM duration is similar in Sleep Ring and Fitbit but more variable in Sleep Ring.
Sleep duration ranked highest in Actigraphy, but also exhibited the highest variance/deviation, followed by Sleep Ring and Fitbit.
Fitbit is more sensitive in detecting awakenings compared to Actigraphy.
Future research should exploresleep health parameters across wearable devices to ensure accuracy in Blacks, considering discrepancies in metrics potentially due to differences in skin tone and the impact of refractory lights
Support (if any)
NIH R25HL10-5444; R01HL142066 and R01AG067523.
Related Results
Is a Fitbit a Diary? Self-Tracking and Autobiography
Is a Fitbit a Diary? Self-Tracking and Autobiography
Data becomes something of a mirror in which people see themselves reflected. (Sorapure 270)In a 2014 essay for The New Yorker, the humourist David Sedaris recounts an obsession spu...
Validity of the Fitbit activity tracker for measuring steps in community-dwelling older adults
Validity of the Fitbit activity tracker for measuring steps in community-dwelling older adults
Background
Commercially available activity monitors, such as the Fitbit, may encourage physical activity. However, the accuracy of the Fitbit in older adults rema...
Exploring the effects of fitbit incentive on treatment outcomes in veterans undergoing intensive pain rehabilitation program
Exploring the effects of fitbit incentive on treatment outcomes in veterans undergoing intensive pain rehabilitation program
Abstract
Objective
This study compares clinical pain outcomes between patients in a pain treatment program that received a Fitbit, to patients that ...
A Data Driven Approach for Choosing a Wearable Sleep Tracker
A Data Driven Approach for Choosing a Wearable Sleep Tracker
ABSTRACT
Goal and Aims
To evaluate the performance of 6 wearable devices across 4 device classes (research-grade EEG-based head...
Acupuncture as therapeutic resource in patient with bruxism
Acupuncture as therapeutic resource in patient with bruxism
Bruxism is the harmful habit of clenching or grinding the teeth during the day and / or night, with unconscious pattern, with particular intensity and frequency, outside the functi...
Validation of a Self‐Monitoring Tool for Use in Exercise Therapy
Validation of a Self‐Monitoring Tool for Use in Exercise Therapy
AbstractBackgroundAerobic exercise at a subsymptom heart rate has been recommended as therapy for postconcussion syndrome. Assessing adherence with an accurate heart rate‐monitorin...
Sensor-Based Frailty Assessment Using Fitbit
Sensor-Based Frailty Assessment Using Fitbit
This study evaluates the reliability of Fitbit in assessing frailty based on motor and heart rate (HR) parameters through a validated upper extremity function (UEF) test, which inv...
1205 Activity Trackers As A Tool In Sleep Research: Determining Discrepancies In Trackers Vs. PSG
1205 Activity Trackers As A Tool In Sleep Research: Determining Discrepancies In Trackers Vs. PSG
Abstract
Introduction
Fitness-based wearables and other emerging sensor technologies have the potential to track sleep across la...

