Tabar YR, Mikkelsen KB, Shenton N, Kappel SL, Bertelsen AR, Nikbakht R, Toft HO, Henriksen CH, Hemmsen MC, Rank ML, Otto M, Kidmose P. At-home sleep monitoring using generic ear-EEG.
Front Neurosci 2023;
17:987578. [PMID:
36816118 PMCID:
PMC9928964 DOI:
10.3389/fnins.2023.987578]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2022] [Accepted: 01/09/2023] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction
A device comprising two generic earpieces with embedded dry electrodes for ear-centered electroencephalography (ear-EEG) was developed. The objective was to provide ear-EEG based sleep monitoring to a wide range of the population without tailoring the device to the individual.
Methods
To validate the device ten healthy subjects were recruited for a 12-night sleep study. The study was divided into two parts; part A comprised two nights with both ear-EEG and polysomnography (PSG), and part B comprised 10 nights using only ear-EEG. In addition to the electrophysiological measurements, subjects filled out a questionnaire after each night of sleep.
Results
The subjects reported that the ear-EEG system was easy to use, and that the comfort was better in part B. The performance of the system was validated by comparing automatic sleep scoring based on ear-EEG with PSG-based sleep scoring performed by a professional trained sleep scorer. Cohen's kappa was used to assess the agreement between the manual and automatic sleep scorings, and the study showed an average kappa value of 0.71. The majority of the 20 recordings from part A yielded a kappa value above 0.7. The study was compared to a companioned study conducted with individualized earpieces. To compare the sleep across the two studies and two parts, 7 different sleeps metrics were calculated based on the automatic sleep scorings. The ear-EEG nights were validated through linear mixed model analysis in which the effects of equipment (individualized vs. generic earpieces), part (PSG and ear-EEG vs. only ear-EEG) and subject were investigated. We found that the subject effect was significant for all computed sleep metrics. Furthermore, the equipment did not show any statistical significant effect on any of the sleep metrics.
Discussion
These results corroborate that generic ear-EEG is a promising alternative to the gold standard PSG for sleep stage monitoring. This will allow sleep stage monitoring to be performed in a less obtrusive way and over longer periods of time, thereby enabling diagnosis and treatment of diseases with associated sleep disorders.
Collapse