Deconstructing Commercial Wearable Technology: Contributions toward Accurate and Free-Living Monitoring of Sleep.

Despite prolific demands and sales, commercial sleep assessment is primarily limited by the inability to "measure" sleep itself; rather, secondary physiological signals are captured, combined, and subsequently classified as sleep or a specific sleep state. Using markedly different approaches compared with gold-standard polysomnography, wearable companies purporting to measure sleep have rapidly developed during recent decades. These devices are advertised to monitor sleep via sensors such as accelerometers, electrocardiography, photoplethysmography, and temperature, alone or in combination, to estimate sleep stage based upon physiological patterns. However, without regulatory oversight, this market has historically manufactured products of poor accuracy, and rarely with third-party validation. Specifically, these devices vary in their capacities to capture a signal of interest, process the signal, perform physiological calculations, and ultimately classify a state (sleep vs. wake) or sleep stage during a given time domain. Device performance depends largely on success in all the aforementioned requirements. Thus, this review provides context surrounding the complex hardware and software developed by wearable device companies in their attempts to estimate sleep-related phenomena, and outlines considerations and contributing factors for overall device success.

Assessing the Accuracy of Popular Commercial Technologies That Measure Resting Heart Rate and Heart Rate Variability.

Commercial off-the shelf (COTS) wearable devices continue development at unprecedented rates. An unfortunate consequence of their rapid commercialization is the lack of independent, third-party accuracy verification for reported physiological metrics of interest, such as heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV). To address these shortcomings, the present study examined the accuracy of seven COTS devices in assessing resting-state HR and root mean square of successive differences (rMSSD). Five healthy young adults generated 148 total trials, each of which compared COTS devices against a validation standard, multi-lead electrocardiogram (mECG). All devices accurately reported mean HR, according to absolute percent error summary statistics, although the highest mean absolute percent error (MAPE) was observed for CameraHRV (17.26%). The next highest MAPE for HR was nearly 15% less (HRV4Training, 2.34%). When measuring rMSSD, MAPE was again the highest for CameraHRV [112.36%, concordance correlation coefficient (CCC): 0.04], while the lowest MAPEs observed were from HRV4Training (4.10%; CCC: 0.98) and OURA (6.84%; CCC: 0.91). Our findings support extant literature that exposes varying degrees of veracity among COTS devices. To thoroughly address questionable claims from manufacturers, elucidate the accuracy of data parameters, and maximize the real-world applicative value of emerging devices, future research must continually evaluate COTS devices.