Back

Detecting Sleep Deprivation from Running Biomechanics Using Machine Learning Classification: A Comparison Between Wearable and Laboratory Motion Capture

Seynaeve, M.; Hendrickx, K.; Vanwanseele, B.; de Beukelaar, T.

2026-07-15 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.07.14.738397 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Sleep deprivation is associated with impaired endurance performance and an increased risk of running-related injury. Previous research has identified alterations in running biomechanics following a single night of sleep deprivation under laboratory conditions. However, whether these biomechanical changes can be detected using wearable technology remains unknown. Twenty-one recreationally active runners completed submaximal treadmill running under both normal sleep and total sleep deprivation conditions in a randomized crossover design. Biomechanical features were extracted simultaneously using a full-body motion capture system and a trunk-mounted wearable sensor. Five machine learning classifiers were evaluated in two classification tasks: a within-subject task using paired recordings from the same individual, and a between-subject task performed without individual baseline data. Within-subject classification consistently exceeded chance level for both measurement systems, with best accuracies of 85% for the wearable sensor (Logistic Regression) and 83% for the motion capture system (Random Forest). These findings indicate that sleep deprivation produces a systematic and individually consistent biomechanical signature during running. In contrast, between-subject classification failed across nearly all models and systems, with accuracies remaining close to chance level ([~]50%), demonstrating that inter-individual variability obscures the sleep-deprivation signal in the absence of personalized baseline data. Both systems converged on temporal organization, loading-related variables, and stride-to-stride variability as the most discriminative feature domains. Contrary to expectations, the laboratory motion capture system did not outperform the wearable sensor. Together, these findings demonstrate that individualized, baseline-referenced monitoring is essential for detecting sleep-deprivation-related changes in running gait, and suggest that a single trunk-mounted wearable sensor may provide a practical solution for real-world monitoring when paired recordings are available.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.4%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 5%
9.7%
3
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.8%
4
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
5
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.7%
6
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
7
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
8
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
9
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
10
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
12
Gait & Posture
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
13
Experimental Gerontology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
14
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.9%
15
Journal of Applied Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
16
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
17
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
18
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
19
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.1%
20
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
21
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
22
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 57%
0.8%
23
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
25
The Journal of Experimental Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
26
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 35%
0.6%
27
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%