Performance of seven consumer sleep-tracking devices compared with polysomnography

Abstract

Abstract 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.