• DOI:10.1080/07420528.2019.1682006
• Corpus ID: 207936993

Performance assessment of new-generation Fitbit technology in deriving sleep parameters and stages

@article{Haghayegh2019PerformanceAO,
  title={Performance assessment of new-generation Fitbit technology in deriving sleep parameters and stages},
  author={Shahab Haghayegh and Sepideh Khoshnevis and Michael H. Smolensky and Kenneth R. Diller and Richard J. Castriotta},
  journal={Chronobiology International},
  year={2019},
  volume={37},
  pages={47 - 59}
}

• S. Haghayegh, S. Khoshnevis, +2 authors R. Castriotta
• Published 13 November 2019
• Computer Science
• Chronobiology International

ABSTRACT We compared performance in deriving sleep variables by both Fitbit Charge 2™, which couples body movement (accelerometry) and heart rate variability (HRV) in combination with its proprietary interpretative algorithm (IA), and standard actigraphy (Motionlogger® Micro Watch Actigraph: MMWA), which relies solely on accelerometry in combination with its best performing ‘Sadeh’ IA, to electroencephalography (EEG: Zmachine® Insight+ and its proprietary IA) used as reference. We conducted home sleep studies on 35 healthy adults, 33 of whom provided complete datasets of the three simultaneously assessed technologies. Relative to the Zmachine EEG method, Fitbit showed an overall Kappa agreement of 54% in distinguishing wake/sleep epochs and sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 57% in detecting sleep epochs. Fitbit, relative to EEG, underestimated sleep onset latency (SOL) by ~11 min and overestimated sleep efficiency (SE) by ~4%. There was no statistically significant difference between Fitbit and EEG methods in measuring wake after sleep onset (WASO) and total sleep time (TST). Fitbit showed substantial agreement with EEG in detecting rapid eye movement and deep sleep, but only moderate agreement in detecting light sleep. The MMWA method showed 51% overall Kappa agreement with the EEG one in detecting wake/sleep epochs, with sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 53% in detecting sleep epochs. MMWA, relative to EEG, underestimated SOL by ~10 min. There was no significant difference between Fitbit and MMWA methods in amount of bias in estimating SOL, WASO, TST, and SE; however, the minimum detectable change (MDC) per sleep variable with Fitbit was better (smaller) than with MMWA, respectively, by ~10 min, ~16 min, ~22 min, and ~8%. Overall, performance of Fitbit accelerometry and HRV technology in conjunction with its proprietary IA to detect sleep vs. wake episodes is slightly better than wrist actigraphy that relies solely on accelerometry and best performing Sadeh IA. Moreover, the smaller MDC of Fitbit technology in deriving sleep parameters in comparison to wrist actigraphy makes it a suitable option for assessing changes in sleep quality over time, longitudinally, and/or in response to interventions.