Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Sleep Sci 2017; 10(03): 132-135
DOI: 10.5935/1984-0063.20170023
SHORT COMMUNICATION

What wrist should you wear your actigraphy device on? Analysis of dominant vs. non-dominant wrist actigraphy for measuring sleep in healthy adults

Matthew William Driller
1   University of Waikato, Health, Sport and Human Performance - Hamilton - Waikato - New Zealand
,
Shannon O'Donnell
1   University of Waikato, Health, Sport and Human Performance - Hamilton - Waikato - New Zealand
,
Francisco Tavares
1   University of Waikato, Health, Sport and Human Performance - Hamilton - Waikato - New Zealand
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
  Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Differences in sleep results due to the placement of actigraphy devices (non-dominant vs. dominant wrist) are yet to be determined.

METHODS: 65 nights of data from 13 adult participants was collected while participants wore two actigraphy devices, one on each wrist. Sleep indices including total sleep time (TST), total time in bed (TTB), sleep efficiency (SE%), sleep latency (SL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), sleep onset time (SOT) and wake time (WT) were assessed between the two devices.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences between devices for any of the measured sleep variables (p>0.05). SE%, SL and WASO resulted in high correlations between devices (0.89, 0.89 and 0.76, respectively), with all other sleep variables resulting in very high correlations (>0.90) between devices.

CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, it does not seem critical which wrist the actigraphy device is worn on for measuring key sleep variables.

Keywords:

Polysomnography - Actigraphy - Validity of Tests - Technology


Publication History

Received: 16 May 2017

Accepted: 11 August 2017

Article published online:
11 October 2023

© 2023. Brazilian Sleep Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Ko PR, Kientz JA, Choe EK, Kay M, Landis CA, Watson NF. Consumer Sleep Technologies: A Review of the Landscape. J Clin Sleep Med. 2015;11(12):1455-61.
  • 2 Kushida CA, Chang A, Gadkary C, Guilleminault C, Carrillo O, Dement WC. Comparison of actigraphic, polysomnographic, and subjective assessment of sleep parameters in sleep-disordered patients. Sleep Med. 2001;2(5):389-96.
  • 3 Babin L, Lee S, Halko S, Boudreau A, George C. Determining sleep-wake activity using actiwatch. Sleep Res. 1997;26:640.
  • 4 Sadeh A. The role and validity of actigraphy in sleep medicine: an update. Sleep Med Rev. 2011;15(4):259-67.
  • 5 Jean-Louis G, Mendlowicz MV, Von Gizycki H, Zizi F, Nunes J. Assessment of physical activity and sleep by actigraphy: examination of gender differences. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 1999;8(8):1113-7.
  • 6 Marino M, Li Y, Rueschman MN, Winkelman JW, Ellenbogen JM, Solet JM, et al. Measuring sleep: accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of wrist actigraphy compared to polysomnography. Sleep. 2013;36(11):1747-55.
  • 7 Russell CA, Caldwell JA, Arand D, Myers LJ, Wubbels P, Downs H. Validation of the Fatigue Science ReadibandTM Actigraph and Associated Sleep/WakeClassification Algorithms; 2011 [cited 2017 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.fatiguescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Readiband-Validation-Accuracy.pdf
  • 8 Driller M, McQuillan J, O'Donnell S. Inter-device reliability of an automatic-scoring actigraph for measuring sleep in healthy adults. Sleep Sci. 2016;9(3):198-201.
  • 9 Munro BH. Statistical methods for health care research. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
  • 10 Hopkins W. Analysis of reliability with a spreadsheet. A New View of Statistics, Internet Society for Sport Science. 2010. [cited 2017 Aug 22]. Available from: http://sportsci.org/resource/stats/xrely.xls
  • 11 Werner H, Molinari L, Guyer C, Jenni OG. Agreement rates between actigraphy, diary, and questionnaire for children's sleep patterns. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162(4):350-8.
  • 12 O’Donnell S, Driller MW. Sleep-hygiene Education improves Sleep Indices in Elite Female Athletes. Int J Exerc Sci. 2017;10:522-30.
  • 13 Briscoe S, Hardy E, Pengo MF, Kosky C, Williams AJ, Hart N, et al. Comparison of 7 versus 14 days wrist actigraphy monitoring in a sleep disorders clinic population. Chronobiol Int. 2014;31(3):356-62.
  • 14 Short MA, Gradisar M, Lack LC, Wright HR, Chatburn A. Estimating adolescent sleep patterns: parent reports versus adolescent self-report surveys, sleep diaries, and actigraphy. Nat Sci Sleep. 2013;5:23-6.
  • 15 Conrad N, Karlik J, Lewandowski Holley A, Wilson AC, Koh J. A Narrative Review: Actigraphy as an Objective Assessment of Perioperative Sleep and Activity in Pediatric Patients. Children (Basel). 2017;4(4):pii:E26.
  • 16 Sadeh A, Sharkey KM, Carskadon MA. Activity-based sleep-wake identification: an empirical test of methodological issues. Sleep. 1994;17(3):201-7.
  • 17 Zinkhan M, Berger K, Hense S, Nagel M, Obst A, Koch B, et al. Agreement of different methods for assessing sleep characteristics: a comparison of two actigraphs, wrist and hip placement, and self-report with polysomnography. Sleep Med. 2014;15(9):1107-14.