Abstract
Introduction Actigraphy has been used widely in sleep research due to its non-invasive, cost-effective ability to monitor sleep. Traditionally, manually-scored actigraphy has been deemed the most appropriate in the research setting; however, technological advances have seen the emergence of automatic-scoring wearable devices and software. Methods A total of 60-nights of sleep data from 20-healthy adult participants (10 male, 10 female, age: 26 ± 10 years) were collected while wearing two devices concomitantly. The objective was to compare an automatic-scoring device (Fatigue Science Readiband™ [AUTO]) and a manually-scored device (Micro Motionlogger® [MAN]) based on the Cole-Kripke method. Manual-scoring involved trained technicians scoring all 60-nights of sleep data. Sleep indices including total sleep time (TST), total time in bed (TIB), sleep onset latency (SOL), sleep efficiency (SE), wake after sleep onset (WASO), wake episodes per night (WE), sleep onset time (SOT) and wake time (WT) were assessed between the two devices using mean differences, 95% levels of agreement, Pearson-correlation coefficients ( r ), and typical error of measurement (TEM) analysis. Results There were no significant differences between devices for any of the measured sleep variables ( p ≥0.05). All sleep indices resulted in very-strong correlations ( all r ≥0.84) between devices. A mean difference between devices of <1 minutes for TST was associated with a TEM of 15.5 minute (95% CI =12.3 to 17.7 minutes). Conclusion Given there were no significant differences between devices in the current study, automatic-scoring actigraphy devices may provide a more practical and cost-effective alternative to manually-scored actigraphy in healthy populations.