The (mis)perception of sleep: factors influencing the discrepancy between self-reported and objective sleep parameters.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Self-reported perception of sleep often differs from objective sleep study measures, but factors predicting the discrepancy between self-reported and objective sleep parameters are controversial, and a comparison of laboratory vs ambulatory polysomnography (PSG) is lacking. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed PSGs conducted between 2012 and 2016. Linear regression was applied to predict the discrepancy between self-reported and objective sleep parameters (total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, using age, sex, arousal index, type of sleep disorder, and PSG type [laboratory vs ambulatory] as regressors). RESULTS: A total of 303 PSGs were analyzed (49% women, median age 48 years), comprising patients with insomnia (32%), sleep-related breathing disorders (27%), sleep-related movement disorders (15%), hypersomnia/narcolepsy (14%), and parasomnias (12%). Sleep disorder was the best predictor of discrepancy between self-reported and objective total sleep time, and patients with insomnia showed higher discrepancy values compared to all other patient groups (P < .001), independent of age and PSG type (P > .05). Contributory effects for higher discrepancy values were found for lower arousal index. Patients with insomnia underestimated both total sleep time (median discrepancy: 46 minutes, P < .001) and sleep efficiency (median discrepancy: 11%, P < .001). No significant predictor for discrepancy of sleep latency was found. CONCLUSIONS: Misperception of sleep duration and efficiency is common in sleep lab patients, but most prominent in insomnia, independent of age, sex, or laboratory vs ambulatory recording setting. This underlines the role of PSG in patients with a clinical diagnosis of insomnia and its use in cognitive behavioral therapy.

3D Camera and Pulse Oximeter for Respiratory Events Detection.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to derive a respiratory movement signal from a 3D time-of-flight camera and to investigate if it can be used in combination with SpO2 to detect respiratory events comparable to polysomnography (PSG) based detection. METHODS: We derived a respiratory signal from a 3D camera and developed a new algorithm that detects reduced respiratory movement and SpO2 desaturation to score respiratory events. The method was tested on 61 patients' synchronized 3D video and PSG recordings. The predicted apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), calculated based on total sleep time, and predicted severity were compared to manual PSG annotations (manualPSG). Predicted AHI evaluation, measured by intraclass correlation (ICC), and severity classification were performed. Furthermore, the results were evaluated by 30-second epoch analysis, labelled either as respiratory event or normal breathing, wherein the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and Cohen's kappa were calculated. RESULTS: The predicted AHI scored an ICC r = 0.94 (0.90 - 0.96 at 95% confidence interval, p < 0.001) compared to manualPSG. Severity classification scored 80% accuracy, with no misclassification by more than one severity level. Based on 30-second epoch analysis, the method scored a Cohen's kappa = 0.72, accuracy = 0.88, sensitivity = 0.80, and specificity = 0.91. CONCLUSION: Our detection method using SpO2 and 3D camera had excellent reliability and substantial agreement with PSG-based scoring. SIGNIFICANCE: This method showed the potential to reliably detect respiratory events without airflow and respiratory belt sensors, sensors that can be uncomfortable to patients and susceptible to movement artefacts.