Actigraphy-Based Sleep Detection: Validation with Polysomnography and Comparison of Performance for Nighttime and Daytime Sleep During Simulated Shift Work

PURPOSE: Actigraphy-based sleep detection algorithms were mostly validated using nighttime sleep, and their performance in detecting daytime sleep is unclear. We evaluated and compared the performance of Actiware and the Cole-Kripke algorithm (C-K) – two commonly used actigraphy-based algorithms – in detecting daytime and nighttime sleep. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Twenty-five healthy young adults were monitored by polysomnography and actigraphy during two in-lab protocols with scheduled nighttime and/or daytime sleep (within-subject design). Mixed-effect models were conducted to compare the sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score (a less-biased measure of accuracy) of Actiware (with low/medium/high threshold setting, separately) and C-K in detecting sleep epochs from actigraphy recordings during nighttime/daytime. t-tests and intraclass correlation coefficients were used to assess the agreement between actigraphy-based algorithms and polysomnography in scoring total sleep time (TST). RESULTS: Sensitivity was similar between nighttime (Actiware: 0.93–0.99 across threshold settings; C-K: 0.61) and daytime sleep (Actiware: 0.93–0.99; C-K: 0.66) for both the C-K and Actiware (daytime/nighttime×algorithm interaction: p > 0.1). Specificity for daytime sleep was lower (Actiware: 0.35–0.54; C-K: 0.91) than that for nighttime sleep (Actiware: 0.37–0.62; C-K: 0.93; p = 0.001). Specificity was also higher for C-K than Actiware (p < 0.001), with no daytime/nighttime×algorithm interaction (p > 0.1). C-K had lower F1 (nighttime = 0.74; daytime = 0.77) than Actiware (nighttime = 0.95–0.98; daytime = 0.90–0.91) for both nighttime and daytime sleep (all p < 0.05). The daytime-nighttime difference in F1 was opposite for Actiware (daytime: 0.90–0.91; nighttime: 0.95–0.98) and C-K (daytime: 0.77; nighttime: 0.74; interaction p = 0.003). Bias in TST was lowest in Actiware (with medium-threshold) for nighttime sleep (underestimation of 5.99 min/8h) and in Actiware (with low-threshold) for daytime sleep (overestimation of 17.75 min/8h). CONCLUSION: Daytime/nighttime sleep affected specificity and F1 but not sensitivity of actigraphy-based sleep scoring. Overall, Actiware performed better than the C-K algorithm. Actiware with medium-threshold was the least biased in estimating nighttime TST, and Actiware with low-threshold was the least biased in estimating daytime TST.