File(s) not publicly available

The validity of activity monitors for measuring sleep in elite athletes

journal contribution
posted on 06.12.2017, 00:00 by Charli SargentCharli Sargent, Antonio LastellaAntonio Lastella, S Halson, Gregory RoachGregory Roach
Objectives: There is a growing interest in monitoring the sleep of elite athletes. Polysomnography is considered the gold standard for measuring sleep, however this technique is impractical if the aim is to collect data simultaneously with multiple athletes over consecutive nights. Activity monitors may be a suitable alternative for monitoring sleep, but these devices have not been validated against polysomnography in a population of elite athletes. Design: Participants (n = 16) were endurance-trained cyclists participating in a 6-week training camp. Methods: A total of 122 nights of sleep were recorded with polysomnography and activity monitors simultaneously. Agreement, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated from epoch-for-epoch comparisons of polysomnography and activity monitor data. Sleep variables derived from polysomnography and activity monitors were compared using paired t-tests. Activity monitor data were analysed using low, medium, and high sleep–wake thresholds. Results: Epoch-for-epoch comparisons showed good agreement between activity monitors and polysomnography for each sleep–wake threshold (81–90%). Activity monitors were sensitive to sleep (81–92%), but specificity differed depending on the threshold applied (67–82%). Activity monitors underestimated sleep duration (18–90 min) and overestimated wake duration (4–77 min) depending on the threshold applied. Conclusions: Applying the correct sleep–wake threshold is important when using activity monitors to measure the sleep of elite athletes. For example, the default sleep–wake threshold (>40 activity counts = wake) underestimates sleep duration by ∼50 min and overestimates wake duration by ∼40 min. In contrast, sleep–wake thresholds that have a high sensitivity to sleep (>80 activity counts = wake) yield the best combination of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity.

Funding

Category 1 - Australian Competitive Grants (this includes ARC, NHMRC)

History

Issue

2015

Start Page

848

End Page

853

Number of Pages

6

eISSN

1878-1861

ISSN

1440-2440

Publisher

Elsevier

Language

en-aus

Peer Reviewed

Yes

Open Access

No

External Author Affiliations

Appleton Institute for Behavioural Sciences; Australian Institute of Sport; School of Human, Health and Social Sciences (2013- );

Author Research Institute

Appleton Institute

Era Eligible

Yes

Journal

Journal of science and medicine in sport.