Reliability of commercially available sleep and activity trackers with manual switch-to-sleep mode activation in free-living healthy individuals

INTRODUCTION Wearable health devices have become trendy among consumers, but it is not known whether they accurately measure sleep and physical activity parameters. To address this question, we have studied the measured data of two consumer-level activity monitors (Up Move Jawbone® (U) and Withings Pulse 02® (W)) and compared it with reference methods for sleep and activity recordings, namely the Bodymedia SenseWear Pro Armband® actigraph (SWA) and home-polysomnography (H-PSG). METHODS Twenty healthy patients were assessed at home, during sleep, with the four devices. An additional 24-h period of recording was then planned during which they wore the 2 trackers and the SWA. Physical activity and sleep parameters obtained with the 4 devices were analyzed. RESULTS Significant correlations with H-PSG were obtained for total sleep time (TST) for all the devices: r=0.48 for W (p=0.04), r=0.63 for U (p=0.002), r=0.7 for SWA (p=0.0003). The best coefficient was obtained with SWA. Significant correlations were also obtained for time in bed (TIB) for U and SWA vs PSG (r=0.79 and r=0.76, p<0.0001 for both) but not for W (r=0.45, p=0.07). No significant correlations were obtained for deep sleep, light sleep, and sleep efficiency (SE) measurements with W, U and SWA. Sleep latency (SL) correlated with H-PSG only when measured against SWA (r=0.5, p=0.02). Physical activity assessment revealed significant correlations for U and W with SWA for step count (both r=0.95 and p<0.0001) and active energy expenditure (EE) (r=0.65 and 0.54; p=0.0006 and p<0.0001). Total EE was also correctly estimated (r=0.75 and 0.52; p<0.0001 and p=0.001). CONCLUSION Sleep and activity monitors are only able to produce a limited set of reliable measurements, such as TST, step count, and active EE, with a preference for U which performs globally better. Despite the manual activation to sleep mode, U and W were not suitable for giving correct data such as sleep architecture, SE, and SL. In the future, to enhance accuracy of such monitors, researchers and providers have to collaborate to write algorithms based reliably on sleep physiology. It could avoid misleading the consumer.

[1]  H. Montgomery-Downs,et al.  Movement toward a novel activity monitoring device , 2012, Sleep and Breathing.

[2]  Lora Giangregorio,et al.  Behavior Change Techniques Present in Wearable Activity Trackers: A Critical Analysis , 2016, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[3]  Christian Lederer,et al.  Association between Walking Speed and Age in Healthy, Free-Living Individuals Using Mobile Accelerometry—A Cross-Sectional Study , 2011, PloS one.

[4]  Rebecca M. C. Spencer,et al.  Reliability of Sleep Measures from Four Personal Health Monitoring Devices Compared to Research-Based Actigraphy and Polysomnography , 2016, Sensors.

[5]  Tim Olds,et al.  The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study , 2015, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.

[6]  M. Littner,et al.  Practice parameters for the indications for polysomnography and related procedures: an update for 2005. , 2005, Sleep.

[7]  A. Turton,et al.  Energy expenditure in obstructive sleep apnea: validation of a multiple physiological sensor for determination of sleep and wake , 2013, Sleep and Breathing.

[8]  M. Thorpy,et al.  Sleep-Related Movement Disorders , 2013 .

[9]  Sudhansu Chokroverty,et al.  Is There a Clinical Role For Smartphone Sleep Apps? Comparison of Sleep Cycle Detection by a Smartphone Application to Polysomnography. , 2015, Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

[10]  I-Min Lee,et al.  Physical activity and weight gain prevention. , 2010, JAMA.

[11]  D. Hurley,et al.  Objective measurements of sleep for non‐laboratory settings as alternatives to polysomnography – a systematic review , 2011, Journal of sleep research.

[12]  D. Bassett,et al.  Comparison of four ActiGraph accelerometers during walking and running. , 2010, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[13]  Chin Moi Chow,et al.  The validity of Actiwatch2 and SenseWear armband compared against polysomnography at different ambient temperature conditions , 2015, Sleep science.

[14]  M. Kryger,et al.  Principles and Practice of Sleep Medicine , 1989 .

[15]  R. Rabasa-Lhoret,et al.  Validation and reliability of two activity monitors for energy expenditure assessment. , 2016, Journal of science and medicine in sport.

[16]  R. Furberg,et al.  Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers , 2015, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.

[17]  Ian M Colrain,et al.  Validation of Sleep-Tracking Technology Compared with Polysomnography in Adolescents. , 2015, Sleep.

[18]  Sonia Ancoli-Israel,et al.  The SBSM Guide to Actigraphy Monitoring: Clinical and Research Applications , 2015, Behavioral sleep medicine.

[19]  Cathy Alessi,et al.  Practice parameters for the use of autotitrating continuous positive airway pressure devices for titrating pressures and treating adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: an update for 2007. An American Academy of Sleep Medicine report. , 2008, Sleep.

[20]  S. Quan,et al.  Rules for scoring respiratory events in sleep: update of the 2007 AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events. Deliberations of the Sleep Apnea Definitions Task Force of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. , 2012, Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

[21]  James Andrew Woodman,et al.  Accuracy of Energy Expenditure Predictions and Activity Identification in Consumer-Based Activity Monitors , 2015 .