Abstract
Background
Sleep is an important determinant of individuals’ health and behavior during the wake phase. Novel research methods for field assessments are required to enable the monitoring of sleep over a prolonged period and across a large number of people. The ubiquity of smartphones offers new avenues for detecting rest-activity patterns in everyday life in a noninvasive an inexpensive manner and on a large scale. Recent studies provided evidence for the potential of smartphone interaction monitoring as a novel tracking method to approximate rest-activity patterns based on the timing of smartphone activity and inactivity throughout the 24-hour day. These findings require further replication and more detailed insights into interindividual variations in the associations and deviations with commonly used metrics for monitoring rest-activity patterns in everyday life.
Objective
This study aimed to replicate and expand on earlier findings regarding the associations and deviations between smartphone keyboard–derived and self-reported estimates of the timing of the onset of the rest and active periods and the duration of the rest period. Moreover, we aimed to quantify interindividual variations in the associations and time differences between the 2 assessment modalities and to investigate to what extent general sleep quality, chronotype, and trait self-control moderate these associations and deviations.
Methods
Students were recruited to participate in a 7-day experience sampling study with parallel smartphone keyboard interaction monitoring. Multilevel modeling was used to analyze the data.
Results
In total, 157 students participated in the study, with an overall response rate of 88.9% for the diaries. The results revealed moderate to strong relationships between the keyboard-derived and self-reported estimates, with stronger associations for the timing-related estimates (β ranging from .61 to .78) than for the duration-related estimates (β=.51 and β=.52). The relational strength between the time-related estimates was lower, but did not substantially differ for the duration-related estimates, among students experiencing more disturbances in their general sleep quality. Time differences between the keyboard-derived and self-reported estimates were, on average, small (<0.5 hours); however, large discrepancies were also registered for quite some nights. The time differences between the 2 assessment modalities were larger for both timing-related and rest duration–related estimates among students who reported more disturbances in their general sleep quality. Chronotype and trait self-control did not significantly moderate the associations and deviations between the 2 assessment modalities.
Conclusions
We replicated the positive potential of smartphone keyboard interaction monitoring for estimating rest-activity patterns among populations of regular smartphone users. Chronotype and trait self-control did not significantly influence the metrics’ accuracy, whereas general sleep quality did: the behavioral proxies obtained from smartphone interactions appeared to be less powerful among students who experienced lower general sleep quality. The generalization and underlying process of these findings require further investigation.