Abstract
Sleep-related health disorders are increasing worldwide; diagnosis and treatment of such sleep diseases are commonly invasive and sometimes unpractical or expensive. Actigraphy has been recently introduced as a tool for the study of sleep and circadian disorders; however, there are several devices that claim to be useful for research and have not been thoroughly tested. This comparative study provides activity, sleep and temperature information regarding several of the most commonly used actigraphers: Micro-Mini Motion Logger; Act Trust; Misfit Flash; Fitbit Flex & Thermochron. Twenty-two healthy young subjects were assessed with five different commercial actigraphs (Micro-Mini Motionlogger Watch, Condor Act Trust, MisFit Flash and Fitbit Flex) and a temperature recorder (Thermochron), and also completed a sleep diary for a week. There were not significant differences in the analysis of rest-activity pattern between devices. Temperature rhythm comparison between the Act Trust and the Thermochron showed significant differences in rhythm percentage (p<0.05) and mesor (p<0.0563) but not in amplitude or acrophase. Although data accessibility and ease of use was very different for the diverse devices, there were no significant differences for sleep onset, total sleep time and sleep efficiency recordings, where applicable. In conclusion, depending on the type of study and analysis desired (as well as cost and compliance of use), we propose some relative advantages for the different actigraphy/temperature recording devices.