Back

In-home validation of wrist Actigraphy against portable electroencephalography for sleep assessment in older adults

Deguchi, N.; Hatanaka, S.; Daimaru, K.; Maruo, K.; Sasai, H.

2026-01-16 public and global health
10.64898/2026.01.15.26344168 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundWhile accurate sleep measurement is vital for older adults, the validity of actigraphy (AG) in free-living environments remains controversial, particularly given the flexible sleep-wake schedules common in this demographic. To address this uncertainty, we assessed the accuracy of wrist AG against in-home portable electroencephalography (EEG) among community-dwelling older adults. MethodsCommunity-dwelling older adults underwent concurrent sleep monitoring using a portable EEG device and a wrist-worn AG for five consecutive nights whenever possible, with monitoring extended to up to seven nights when feasible. Key sleep parameters, including total sleep time (TST), sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and sleep efficiency, were derived from both devices. Measurement agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman plots and multilevel modeling, while reliability and accuracy were quantified via intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). ResultsForty-nine adults contributed 217 nights of recordings. On average, AG slightly overestimated TST and sleep efficiency and underestimated SOL and WASO compared with EEG. Single-measure ICCs were 0.73 for TST and 0.38 for WASO (0.84 and 0.55 for averages across nights), and the MAPE was 11% for TST but exceeded 50% for SOL and WASO, indicating poor accuracy for these indices. ConclusionIn community-dwelling older adults, wrist AG yielded acceptably accurate estimates of average TST, supporting its use in epidemiological monitoring of sleep duration. However, large errors for SOL and WASO indicate that portable EEG- or polysomnography-based assessment remains indispensable when precise evaluation of sleep initiation and nocturnal wakefulness is required.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Sleep Research
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.5%
2
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
8.8%
3
Sleep
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.5%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.6%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 15%
6.6%
50% of probability mass above
6
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
7
Sleep Medicine
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
8
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.7%
9
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
10
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
11
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
12
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
38 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
13
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
14
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
15
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 58%
0.7%
16
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
17
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory
35 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
18
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%
19
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
20
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
21
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
22
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%
23
Open Research Europe
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%
24
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%