Abstract
The rise of wearable technology has led to EEG-based sleep monitoring devices that use electrodes placed on the forehead, ear, or neck. These devices offer promising applications in clinical and healthy populations by comparing sleep patterns, monitoring intervention responses, and examining the relationship between sleep and lifestyle factors. Despite their potential, challenges like validation against polysomnography, regulatory hurdles, data privacy, and usability hinder clinical adoption. This review explores these devices, their applications, and integration challenges in clinical practice.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Sleep plays a crucial role in overall health and well-being, and its quality is strongly linked to numerous health issues, as well as mental health and cognitive performance1,2. Polysomnography (PSG) has been the gold standard for clinical sleep monitoring and diagnostics, capturing a variety of physiological responses, including electroencephalogram (EEG), electrooculogram (EOG), and electromyogram (EMG) activity, as well as breathing effort, airflow, pulse, and blood oxygen saturation3. Despite PSG’s reliability in recording sleep patterns, it has several limitations. PSG studies are expensive and time-consuming, requiring trained professionals for setup and data scoring. Sleep stages (wake, sleep stages 1 (N1), 2 (N2), 3 (N3), and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep) are manually annotated by experts in 30-second epochs according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine’s guidelines3. N1 and N2 stages are often combined as light sleep, and N3 is referred to as deep sleep. This manual scoring suffers from low inter-rater reliability, with an average agreement of 82.6%4 or κ = 0.765, decreasing even further in patients with sleep pathologies4. The stage-specific agreement has shown to be even lower, with N1 demonstrating only fair agreement between scorers (κ = 0.24)5. Furthermore, PSG may not accurately represent a patient’s typical sleep. The unfamiliar clinical settings can cause stress, and one-night recordings do not account for intra-individual night-to-night variabilities.
Wearables and nearables are increasingly being used for sleep monitoring6,7,8,9,10,11. While nearables offer non-contact methods to monitor sleep, wearables provide more detailed and accurate sleep data12. Unlike other sleep-monitoring wearbles, EEG-based devices closely mimic the EEG component of PSG, making them highly relevant for precise sleep monitoring. In the past decade, advancements in wearable technologies have given rise to new types of sleep staging devices that use forehead, ear, or neck electrodes to acquire EEG data. These user-friendly and cost-effective devices can potentially offer a viable alternative to PSG, facilitating long-term, home-based sleep monitoring without the need for expert oversight. However, their integration into clinical practice is still in its infancy, largely due to the limited evidence of validations against PSG, regulatory constraints, data privacy and security concerns, and usability and availability issues.
While previous reviews6,7,8,9,10,11 have provided comprehensive overviews of wearable sensors in sleep monitoring, they typically cover a broad range of devices, including wrist-worn, ring-based, and other non-EEG-based wearables. However, these reviews often only touch upon EEG-based devices as part of a larger discussion. This review differentiates itself by specifically focusing on EEG-based wearable sleep monitoring devices, delving deeper into their unique challenges and advantages. We provide a detailed examination of validation studies, regulatory considerations, and specific applications of EEG-based devices in both clinical and healthy populations. Additionally, this review highlights distinct issues related to data privacy and security, usability, and the challenges hindering their wide adoption in clinical practice, along with potential strategies to mitigate these obstacles. By narrowing our focus to EEG-based devices, we aim to provide a more targeted analysis that can better inform the development, adoption, and future direction of these specific technologies in sleep monitoring.
EEG-based wearable sleep tracking devices
The performance of EEG-based sleep tracking devices is often evaluated using Cohen’s kappa (κ) values, which measure the agreement between two hypnograms (e.g., specialist vs. device) while accounting for agreements that occur by chance. It is calculated as κ = (pj-pe)/(1-pe), where pj is the scorer accuracy, and pe is the baseline accuracy. Kappa values less than 0.00 indicate poor agreement, 0.00–0.20 slight agreement, 0.21–0.40 fair agreement, 0.41–0.60 moderate agreement, 0.61–0.80 substantial agreement, and over 0.80 excellent agreement13. While devices’ overall performance and agreement with the gold standard are often reported using Cohen’s kappa and/or accuracies, the evaluation of sleep-stage-specific performance frequently relies on sensitivity and specificity metrics, as they provide a clearer understanding of the device's ability to detect specific sleep stages14.
Forehead
Wearable EEG-based devices utilizing forehead electrodes have demonstrated varying degrees of success in sleep staging and monitoring. A common type of wearable EEG measurement device is a headband, with which electrodes are primarily placed on hair-free facial locations to ensure optimal contact and signal quality. Headbands such as Zeo have shown moderate agreement with PSG (κ = 0.56) but face challenges in detecting wakefulness and have lower performance in low sleep efficiency sleep15,16,17. The Dreem headband has shown good similarity with PSG (κ = 0.75)18. In addition to sleep staging, the Dreem headband has been used to measure sleep position19 and apnea events20, expanding its utility in sleep monitoring. Sleep Profiler (κ = 0.63 to 0.65) and Cognionics (accuracy = 74%) headbands have also demonstrated moderate agreement with PSG but had low agreement (κ = 0.07) and sensitivities for the N1 stage (sensitivity = 0.27–0.32)21,22,23,24. Sleep Profiler is also used to measure arousals25, sleep position26 and sleep spindles27. Other types of devices utilizing forehead and EOG electrodes include sleep masks, which have demonstrated substantial agreement with PSG (κ = 0.77 and κ = 0.79) but also face limitations in accurately measuring N128,29. The Sleepscope device has been utilized not only for sleep staging, where it demonstrated a substantial agreement with PSG (κ = 0.75), but also for measuring arousals30. Neury, a prototype bipolar EEG device, has been used for spike quantification, providing insights into sleep microstructure31. Devices using thin, comfortable, cost-effective electrode sheets while ensuring data quality can offer a comfortable alternative to the existing headband and sleep-mask-type devices. Such devices have shown substantial agreement with PSG (κ = 0.72 and κ = 0.70)32,33. Another type of device, the SOMNOwatch Plus EEG, combines actigraphy with EEG. In healthy adults, the device showed a high agreement (κ = 0.78) with PSG when using semiautomatic sleep analysis (Somnolyzer 24x7), while its software DOMINO Light only showed fair agreement with PSG (κ = 0.37)34. In sleep apnea patients, SOMNOwatch Plus EEG showed high agreement with PSG (agreement = 74.2%), and combining EEG with EOG/EMG improved the results (agreement = 75.5%)35.
Ear
Ear EEG devices have emerged as a promising alternative for sleep monitoring, demonstrating good agreement with PSG and potential applications in various settings. Both in-lab and home monitoring studies have consistently shown that such devices can be used for automatic sleep staging (substantial agreement with PSG, κ = 0.61–0.74)36,37,38,39,40,41,42, longitudinal monitoring39, sleep spindle detection43, muscle activity detection44, and drowsiness monitoring45,46. Devices using around-the-ear electrodes, like the cEEGrid, have shown moderate to substantial agreement with PSG (κ = 0.42 to 0.67)47,48,49, which increased with the addition of EOG and EMG electrodes (κ = 0.70)50. Self-application of these devices has been proven feasible for healthy participants, enabling self-recording of EEG at home50,51. However, like devices utilizing forehead electrodes, ear EEG devices face challenges in detecting the N1 stage36,37,38,39,40,41,42,47,48,49,50.
Neck
The Zmachine Insight+ sleep monitoring system uses electrodes placed on the neck and derives data from the differential mastoids (A1-A2). The system has demonstrated excellent agreement with PSG (κ = 0.85)52 for sleep-wake detection and substantial agreement (κ = 0.72) for staging wake, light, deep, and REM sleep53.
In this review, we examine 32 studies utilizing EEG-based wearable sleep monitoring devices in clinical (n = 20) and healthy populations (n = 12). Most of these studies (n = 21) used forehead devices. Overall, Sleep Profiler, Zmachine Insight+, and Dreem were the most used devices in the analyzed studies. An overview of the devices is provided in Table 1.
Wearable EEG-based sleep-tracking devices in clinical and healthy populations
This section explores the applications of wearable EEG-based sleep-tracking devices in both clinical and healthy populations. The studies include comparisons of sleep patterns between healthy individuals and those with clinical conditions, analyses of intervention effects on sleep, performance comparisons with gold-standard methods, and investigations of the relationships between sleep and various aspects of daily life. Tables 2 and 3 summarize these applications, highlighting the effectiveness and potential benefits of these devices in diverse settings.
Clinical populations
Neurodegenerative diseases
EEG-based wearables have provided valuable insights into critical sleep differences between neurodegenerative disease (NDD) patients and healthy controls, such as reduced slow wave sleep in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients54 and NREM (non-REM) slow wave activity as an early biomarker for identifying individuals at risk for AD25. Additionally, these devices highlighted that agreement levels between Zmachine Insight+, actigraphy, and sleep diaries were shown to decrease in AD patients, highlighting that sleep diaries may capture different aspects of sleep compared to wearable EEG devices55. For Parkinsonian spectrum disorder (PSD) patients, EEG wearables have shown comparable results to PSG56, suggesting their potential in tracking disease progression through biomarkers like NREM sleep with hypertonia27. In multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, a correlation between physical activity and increased deep sleep was revealed57. Furthermore, supine sleep was found to be more prevalent in NDD patients than in healthy controls26. These findings align with broader research indicating that sleep disorders are observed in over 60% of patients with NDDs like PSD, AD, and MS58,59,60,61,62,63. Addressing sleep disorders could potentially delay or prevent the development of cognitive impairments, yet the relationship between sleep disturbances and NDDs remains unclear64. Overall, EEG-based wearables can provide critical insights into this relationship and guide the development of targeted interventions for NDD patients.
Neurological and psychiatric disorders
Wearable EEG-based devices have shown promising results in monitoring sleep and responses to therapy in epilepsy patients. Ear EEG has demonstrated effectiveness in detecting seizures in temporal lobe epilepsy patients and provided moderately high agreement with scalp EEG for sleep staging38,65. In pediatric epilepsy patients with continuous spike-wave of sleep, these devices can provide accurate quantification of spike activity and have been used to monitor responses to corticosteroids, sulthiame, and ketogenic diets31. These findings are consistent with broader research indicating that sleep and epilepsy share a complex bidirectional relationship, where on one hand, seizures and anti-epileptic drugs have found to impact sleep, and on the other hand, sleep pattern changes, such as increased wake after sleep onset, decreased REM, disruptions in the stability of NREM sleep, and sleep oscillations, have been linked to epilepsy66. Sleep disturbances, such as insomnia, poor sleep quality and nightmares, are also prevalent in psychiatric disorders and are associated with the severity of psychiatric symptoms67,68,69. Monitoring sleep in this patient group using Zmachine Insight+ showed fair to good agreement with PSG for most sleep metrics70, suggesting that wearable EEG-based devices could be effectively used for longitudinal monitoring. This could facilitate the development of targeted interventions to improve sleep quality and overall well-being in psychiatric patients.
Chronic pain
EEG-based wearables like the Dreem headband have shown potential for monitoring sleep in chronic pain patients, as preliminary findings indicate patient satisfaction with the device, suggesting its future utility in clinical practice71. Despite the prevalence of sleep problems among this population and their role in developing and maintaining chronic pain, they are often overlooked in routine care72,73. Integrating wearable EEG-based devices could help better understand and address sleep-related issues in chronic pain management.
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
Wearable EEG devices have provided valuable insights into sleep disturbances experienced by individuals with PTSD. For instance, data collected using the Cognionics device revealed that PTSD patients have less REM and Lo Deep sleep (0.1–1 Hz) and more Hi Deep sleep (1–3 Hz) compared to controls74. Additionally, the impact of medications on sleep efficiency and fragmentation was demonstrated in another study using the Cognionics device, with melatonin being associated with more Lo Deep sleep, indicating its potential effectiveness in treating PTSD-related sleep problems75. These findings align with broader research indicating that over 92% of individuals with PTSD report sleep disturbances, including insomnia and nightmares, which significantly impact their overall functioning and quality of life76,77,78.
Diabetes
Wearable EEG-based devices have highlighted significant associations between sleep quality and glycemic variability in diabetes patients. For instance, a study using Zmachine Insight+ showed that poor sleep quality was associated with increased glycemic variability in type 1 diabetes patients, emphasizing the need to consider sleep quality in personalized diabetes management plans79. This aligns with broader research demonstrating sleep disturbances in this population and the relationship between poor sleep quality and lowered glycemic control in both, type 1 and 2 diabetes patients80,81. Using wearable EEG-based devices for home monitoring may provide a feasible way to optimize blood glucose control in diabetes patients.
Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and surgical patients
EEG-based wearables have provided critical insights into sleep disturbances in ICU and surgical patients, highlighting the impact of these disturbances on patient outcomes. Using the Sleep Profiler, Jean et al. examined sleep architecture in critically ill patients, demonstrating how intubation and sedation methods affect sleep quality82. This aligns with broader research indicating that sleep deprivation in ICU patients is linked to delirium, prolonged mechanical ventilation, increased mortality, and extended ICU stays83,84,85. Another study found the potential benefits of dexmedetomidine sedation on sleep duration in non-intubated ICU patients86. In geriatric cardiac surgical patients, the Dreem headband was utilized for peri- and postoperative sleep analysis, revealing increased light sleep and decreased deep sleep in the postoperative phase87. Overall, using EEG-based devices can enhance the management of sleep disturbances and improve outcomes in ICU and surgical settings.
Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD)
Wearable EEG-based sleep trackers have facilitated the investigation of sleep impairments in both OUD and AUD patients. For instance, gender-based differences and discrepancies between objective and self-reported sleep metrics were noted in individuals with OUD undergoing methadone vs. buprenorphine treatment, while no differences between the treatment groups were found88. In another study, further discrepancies between EEG-based and self-reported sleep metrics, along with associations between withdrawal severity and alterations in sleep metrics, were found89. A study in individuals with AUD found lower cortical thickness in the right and left hemispheres to be associated with shorter N3 and REM sleep stage durations, respectively, indicating that addressing brain structural changes could positively impact sleep and vice versa90. These findings are consistent with broader research showing that sleep impairments are a common comorbidity in OUD and AUD patients91, underscoring the potential of wearable EEG-based devices to improve the management of sleep disturbances in these populations.
Sleep disorders
EEG-based sleep wearables have demonstrated potential in detecting and monitoring sleep disorders. The Dreem2 headband accurately detects OSA with performance comparable to expert PSG scorers, making it suitable for at-home monitoring20. The Sleep Profiler is effective in diagnosing sleep bruxism92 and identifying biomarkers for non-REM hypertonia and REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD), aiding early diagnosis of neurodegenerative conditions93. These findings are particularly relevant given the established links between sleep disturbances, including OSA and central sleep apnea, and severe cardiovascular issues such as hypertension, stroke, arrhythmias, coronary artery disease, and heart failure94,95,96. The relationship between sleep disturbances and cardiovascular diseases highlights the potential of sleep monitoring wearables to provide critical insights and enable timely, effective interventions.
Healthy populations
Diet, stress, and chemosensory function
Wearable EEG-based sleep monitoring devices have demonstrated the short-term impacts of sleep fluctuations on daily life and well-being. Studies in non-obese participants revealed associations between sleep duration and chemosensory function, with longer sleep being correlated with lower sweet taste preference and better odor identification97,98. Additionally, one night of reduced sleep in non-obese women was linked to increased hunger, tiredness, sleepiness, and food cravings99. These findings align with broader research indicating that poor sleep quality is associated with poor dietary habits, including higher intake of fats and carbohydrates, which can exacerbate sleep disturbances100,101. Furthermore, the EEG-based wearables have shown that changes in sleep measurements can predict next-day stress levels102 and changes in emotional status30, supporting the connection between poor sleep quality and heightened stress levels highlighted in the broader literature103,104,105. Overall, these insights underscore the potential of wearable EEG-based devices to enhance our understanding of the interplay between sleep, diet, and stress, suggesting that improving sleep quality could positively impact dietary habits and stress levels.
Sports and exercise
EEG-based sleep monitoring devices have shown promise in sports science research, providing valuable insights into the relationship between exercise, sleep, and neurocognitive health. Although such devices cannot fully replace PSG, they can be feasible for monitoring and detecting sleep disorders in athletes42. A study investigating the effects of exercise on sleep in older adults found increased deep sleep, decreased REM sleep, and increased total EEG power in light and deep sleep following a 12-week aerobic exercise intervention106. These findings support broader research indicating that good sleep quality, which can be enhanced by moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, particularly in older adults107, is crucial for overall health and athletic performance108,109,110.
Changes in daily routine
Wearable EEG-based sleep monitoring devices have been used to study the effects of changes in daily routines and work schedules on sleep. For instance, data collected using the Dreem headband demonstrated alterations in objective sleep measures during COVID-19 lockdowns in France. The largest changes were found in “night owls” whose REM sleep had significantly increased111. Another study used Zmachine Insight+ to monitor night shifts’ effects on anesthesia residents’ sleep and demonstrated that a three-day recovery period is not sufficient for restoring sleep levels after night shifts112.
Improving sleep
EEG-based wearable devices have demonstrated potential in improving sleep quality and reducing sleep disturbances. For example, the Dreem headband has been shown to be feasible for delivering auditory stimulation during N3 sleep to enhance slow oscillations and improve sleep quality113. Additionally, it has been used to administer acoustic simulations during sleep apnea events to reduce apnea event duration and oxygen desaturation amplitude and duration114. iSleep, an EEG- and audio-based sleep enhancement device, significantly reduced time-to-sleep for individuals with difficulty falling asleep115. Furthermore, a randomized controlled trial demonstrated that providing feedback and guidance on sleep perceptions using wearable devices like Fitbit and EEG headbands can reduce insomnia severity and sleep disturbance, though it did not alter sleep-wake state discrepancies significantly116.
Discussion
Challenges
Wearable EEG-based devices for sleep staging have emerged as a promising solution to enable data-driven approaches in healthcare, promoting personalized and preventive medicine. However, their widespread adoption in clinical practice faces several technical and ethical challenges. Collaboration between various stakeholders, including technology experts, medical professionals, and regulatory bodies, is essential to overcome these barriers.
Accuracy and validation
Demonstrating clinical validity is crucial for the adoption of wearable EEG-based devices. Recent guidelines by Menghini et al. emphasize the importance of epoch-by-epoch evaluation when validating sleep trackers against gold standard PSG, which should be considered for accurate validation of new devices14. Even studies achieving the highest accuracies18,38,53 have exhibited lower agreeability measures with PSG than inter-scorer reliability in PSG-based approaches (κ = 0.76)117, likely due to a lower signal-to-noise ratio in wearables. Manual scoring can improve agreement with PSG data; for instance, Sleep Profiler’s agreement increased from 71.3% (κ = 0.63) to 73.9% (κ = 0.67) after manual review, demonstrating that current automatic staging of these devices is still not as accurate as human expert analysis23. Several disorders can impact sleep structure, possibly affecting the performance of automatic staging, yet most devices have only been validated against PSG in healthy populations. Evidence in clinical populations is limited (Table 2). Accuracy can also be affected by inter-user variabilities, such as age and sleep hygiene and structure118, as well as intra-user variability and first-night bias. For example, sleep spindles, autonomic activation, and N3 stage have shown the least between-night variability and strongest stability in users, while sleep time duration, REM stage, and sleep efficiency show the lowest stability, suggesting that two-night studies may be necessary for accurate profiling of these metrics23.
Improving automatic scoring is crucial for establishing the clinical validity of these devices. However, this task is complicated by the significant variability in interscorer agreement. While the overall interrater reliability of manual PSG scoring indicates substantial agreement (κ = 0.76), the agreement for specific sleep stages varies considerably: fair for N1 (κ = 0.24), moderate for N2 and N3 (κ = 0.57 for both), substantial for REM (κ = 0.69), and substantial for Wake (κ = 0.70)5. This variability complicates the validation of automatic scoring systems against PSG standards. Furthermore, this subjectivity inherent in manual scoring can be transferred to trained models when they rely on single-scorer annotations4,117. Interscorer agreeability has also been shown to be lower for scoring the data from EEG-based wearable devices, e.g., κ = 0. 66 for a wearable device vs. κ = 0. 76 for PSG in one study32 and κ = 0.94 vs. κ = 0.97 in another21. Ensuring the accuracy and validity of these devices requires the development of evaluation frameworks, collaboration between stakeholders, and further research to improve device performance across various populations.
Regulatory issues
Challenges related to regulatory issues for EEG-based wearable sleep-tracking devices are multifaceted, requiring a delicate balance between ensuring quality and safety and fostering innovation. Most wearable devices are classified as lifestyle and fitness products and are often not subject to the same level of regulatory scrutiny as medical devices. The absence of clear regulatory oversight policies governing these devices can lead to the emergence of products with unknown safety and accuracy, posing risks to consumers and undermining trust in wearable health technologies.
Integration into clinical practice requires devices to be regulated, providing credibility and reliability for medical professionals and patients. However, current regulatory pathways can create market barriers, particularly for small companies and start-ups. In the European Union (EU), manufacturers must comply with the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) 2017/745 put in place in 2021, leading to additional requirements for software products, including wearables119. However, with no centralized regulatory body, the process is complicated, and time-to-certification can take 13–18 months120. In the United States (US), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates medical devices. Its 510(k) process allows for an accelerated clearance, allowing wearable devices to be marketed upon demonstrating substantial equivalence to an existing medical device121,122,123. Furthermore, with the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI), new regulatory frameworks are being developed, such as the European Commission’s AI Act, which aims to harmonize rules for AI systems and promote development while addressing possible risks124,125,126. These regulations can be especially challenging for small- and medium-sized enterprises or academic researchers developing new devices, often hindering the availability of innovative devices for medical use. In navigating these multifaceted regulatory landscapes, the role of ethical design standards like IEEE Std 7000™-2021127 becomes crucial. This standard offers a methodology to integrate ethical considerations into system design, emphasizing communication with stakeholders and ensuring their ethical values are traceable throughout the design and implementation. By leveraging such ethical design, developers can navigate regulatory challenges more effectively, ensuring the alignment of their products with ethical considerations and contributing to the attainment of regulatory approvals. To support innovation, efforts have been made to accelerate the development and adoption of new devices, such as the FDA’s real-world evidence program in the United States128 and the DiGA Fast-Track in Germany129.
Data privacy and security
EEG-based wearable sleep-tracking devices pose distinct data security risks, as brain wave data can reveal various personal details such as potential predispositions to certain diseases or disorders, as well as age and sex assigned at birth130. Ensuring data privacy and security is crucial to protect users from potential abuses of their data. In the EU, the key framework for protecting personal data is the European General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679, GDPR) which grants individuals the right to access, alter, or delete their personal data and restrict its processing131. The EU’s MDR also requires adherence to the GDPR. Additionally, the EU has introduced a Directive on Security of Network and Information Systems to harmonize cybersecurity regulations132. In the US, data privacy regulations are less strict compared to the EU. Nonetheless, specific rules apply to healthcare data, particularly the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). HIPAA establishes relatively broad permissions for the use of protected health information, often making individual consent unnecessary, and devices not intended for use within the healthcare context of HIPAA-covered entities are not subject to these regulations133.
To mitigate data privacy and security risks linked to wearable devices, strategies such as using advanced cybersecurity tools like blockchain, developing transparent data user agreements, updating outdated regulations, and raising individual awareness of security risks could be employed. Furthermore, following standards like IEEE Std 7000™-2021127 reinforce ethical considerations and values in system design, enhancing the overall trust of these devices. Implementing robust data privacy and security measures will foster users and healthcare professionals’ trust, facilitating the integration of these devices into clinical practice.
Availability
One of the main challenges with integrating EEG-based wearable devices into clinical practice is addressing availability concerns and ensuring equal access to these technologies. Users with higher digital literacy and socioeconomic resources are more likely to benefit from wearable devices, which in turn can exacerbate disparities in healthcare access. Public health policies and reimbursement strategies should be designed to promote equal access to these devices and cover the costs associated with wearable data reviews and prescribing. This would encourage healthcare providers to adopt wearables in clinical practice.
In the US, the Center for Medicare134 and Medicaid Services has established new reimbursement codes for remote patient monitoring. In Germany, a fast-track process for low-risk medical devices, including wearables, was introduced in the Digital Health Care Act. These digital health applications, referred to as DiGA, are intended for direct patient use and can be prescribed by physicians or psychotherapists in primary care settings129.
Behavioral change in clinicians
Maintaining behavioral change in clinicians is crucial for the successful integration of EEG-based wearable devices in clinical practice. Clinicians are often hesitant to adopt new technologies for various reasons, such as unfamiliarity, concerns about data privacy, and compatibility with existing clinical systems. Addressing these concerns requires a comprehensive approach that focuses on easing the transition for clinicians. First, seamless interoperability between wearables and existing hospital systems must be ensured without compromising patient privacy or data accessibility. Second, a strong body of clinical evidence demonstrating the benefits and safety of wearable EEG-based devices is needed to increase patient and clinician trust. Finally, comprehensive training and ongoing support must be provided for clinicians, incorporating structured learning modules about wearables and their clinical applications.
Usability
Usability remains a significant challenge for wearable EEG-based devices, particularly in terms of comfort and impact on perceived sleep quality. A study by Mikkelsen et al. (2019)37 that utilized in-ear EEG devices revealed that 85% of participants rated their sleep quality as bad or bearable on the first night, and 75% of participants reported the comfort of the earplugs as bad or bearable on the first night. Only 10% of participants indicated that the earplugs did not negatively impact their sleep at all during the first night of recording18. To ensure wider uptake and consistent usage of these devices, it is vital to address issues related to user experience. Manufacturers should prioritize improving designs by, for example, making them lighter, incorporating soft, breathable textiles in headbands, and utilizing ergonomic designs that better conform to users’ head and ear shapes. Additionally, ensuring that devices are easy to apply correctly, as well as offering clear instructions and support, can further enhance the user experience. By focusing on improving usability, manufacturers can make wearable EEG-based devices more appealing to users, ultimately leading to better patient adherence and more high-quality data collection.
Subjectivity
Subjective sleep assessments are essential for a comprehensive understanding of sleep health, especially in at-home monitoring. These assessments provide insights into perceived sleep quality, complementing objective measures from wearable devices. Common methods include sleep diaries, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)135, and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS)136. For example, a study comparing single-channel EEG, actigraphy, and sleep diaries in older adults found that while total sleep time agreement was high, it decreased in participants with mild impairment and Alzheimer's, showing that sleep diaries capture different sleep aspects. Integrating subjective assessments with wearable EEG data can provide a more comprehensive view of sleep health, identifying issues that objective measures alone may miss55. Including these assessments in studies and at-home monitoring enhances sleep health understanding and helps tailor interventions. More studies should combine both methods to better capture different aspects of sleep.
Clinical practice
As sleep monitoring devices gain traction, healthcare professionals and policymakers face numerous challenges when integrating these technologies into clinical practice.
There are various types of wearables and nearable devices available for sleep monitoring, each offering different advantages and levels of accuracy. Wearable nasal flow devices have proven to be particularly useful for diagnosing disordered breathing-related sleep disorders like OSA, offering diagnostic accuracy comparable to PSG with less invasiveness137,138,139,140. Nearable devices, such as an audio-based system has achieved 87.00% agreement with PSG in sleep stage classification141, and a contactless breathing monitor has shown high sensitivity for deep and REM sleep (75.00% and 74.80%, respectively), but lower sensitivities for light sleep and wake (59.90% and 57.10%, respectively), outperforming some wrist-worn devices142. Wrist and finger-based wearables, including devices like Fitbit, Apple Watch, Garmin, Polar, Oura Ring, WHOOP, and Somfit, are popular for home-based sleep monitoring due to their non-invasiveness. These devices are effective in detecting sleep versus wake states but struggle with specific sleep stage detection (κ = 0.20–0.65)143,144,145,146.
Overall, EEG-based wearables provide superior accuracy compared to wrist-based devices, which, while offering greater user-friendliness and cost-effectiveness, have lower accuracy in clinical populations. For example, EEG headbands have shown higher accuracy compared to actigraphy for sleep quality parameters147, and the Zmachine has shown higher agreement with PSG compared to Fitbit in psychiatric patients148. Integrating EEG-based wearables into clinical practice is crucial for precise sleep monitoring, especially in clinical populations where accuracy is paramount. However, the choice of sleep monitoring technology should be tailored to the specific needs of the patient. For instance, patients with suspected sleep-related breathing disorders may benefit more from nasal wearables, while wrist-based wearables might be more suitable for healthy populations requiring long-term monitoring due to their comfort and ease of use.
To assist clinicians in evaluating and incorporating wearable sleep-tracking devices into their daily practice, we present a comprehensive list of topics to consider (Table 4). This list covers devices’ available data, validation against PSG, regulatory status, evidence for specific clinical populations and applications, and fair availability. It also addresses the potential benefits for patients and clinicians, such as cost-effectiveness, and the challenges of workflow integration, including electronic health record integration, staff training, billing, and data review. Finally, the list highlights the crucial aspects of data rights, governance, storage, and privacy. By carefully considering these factors, clinicians can potentially adopt wearable sleep monitoring devices effectively, paving the way for a new era of connected remote patient care in sleep monitoring. To further illustrate the proposed integration process, Fig. 1 outlines the steps for integrating EEG-based wearable devices into clinical practice, from data collection to clinician review and patient counseling, highlighting key considerations at each step.
This figure outlines the steps (blue) of data collection from users via wearable devices, followed by data storage and data processing to yield both raw and processed data. Processed data is supplied back to the user for feedback and interaction, while both raw and procsessed data are provided to the clinician for review, enabling long-term sleep data monitoring. The clinician then utilizes this data for patient counseling. The figure emphasizes key considerations (green) at each step, such as the validation results and user experience of the device, data privacy, data availability and quality, interoperability with existing systems, integration into the clinicians' workflow, and benefits for clinicians and patients. PSG: polysomnography.
EEG-based wearable sleep monitoring devices hold great potential for transforming the field of sleep medicine by offering a more accessible, cost-effective, and patient-centric approach to sleep assessment. This paper has delved into the current state and applications of these devices, exploring their role in understanding sleep in various clinical populations, the effect of interventions on sleep patterns, and daily aspects of sleep. For instance, these devices have provided insights into sleep alterations in patients with NDDs and the effects of lifestyle factors such as diet and stress on sleep patterns, and vice versa.
However, the integration of these technologies into clinical practice presents several challenges, such as validation against PSG, regulatory compliance, data privacy and security, and patient and clinician benefits, which must be addressed. This paper has provided a comprehensive list of factors to consider to effectively adopt wearable sleep monitoring devices in clinical settings. Clinicians should carefully evaluate the available data, validation results, regulatory status, evidence for specific clinical populations and applications, and fair availability. The potential benefits and challenges for both patients and clinicians should be weighed, including the improvement of clinical workflows, cost-effectiveness, remote patient care, and the complexities of integrating these devices into existing systems. Moreover, addressing the critical aspects of data rights is crucial to maintain patient and clinician trust.
As we look toward the future, the continued exploration of wearable sleep monitoring devices in specific clinical populations and applications will be crucial. Future research should focus on furthering the devices’ validation and establishing best practice guidelines for their use, ultimately aiming to seamlessly integrate them into clinical practice. Sleep monitoring devices may pave the way for a new era of connected remote patient care in sleep monitoring, enabling personalized and effective sleep disorder management. However, this requires a collaborative effort between researchers, healthcare professionals, device manufacturers, and policymakers to ensure that these technologies are responsibly and ethically integrated into the clinical landscape.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Change history
07 March 2025
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44328-025-00031-4
References
Buysse, D. J. Sleep health: can we define it? Does it matter? Sleep 37, 9–17 (2014).
Irwin, M. R. Why sleep is important for health: a psychoneuroimmunology perspective. Annu Rev. Psychol. 66, 143–172 (2015).
Berry, R. et al. The AASM manual for the scoring of sleep and associated events: rules, terminology and technical specifications, version 2.2. Darien, Illinois: American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2015 (2015).
Rosenberg, R. S. & Van Hout, S. The American Academy of sleep medicine inter-scorer reliability program: sleep stage scoring. J. Clin. Sleep. Med. 09, 81–87 (2013).
Lee, Y. J., Lee, J. Y., Cho, J. H. & Choi, J. H. Interrater reliability of sleep stage scoring: a meta-analysis. J. Clin. Sleep. Med. 18, 193–202 (2022).
Stone, J. D. et al. Evaluations of commercial sleep technologies for objective monitoring during routine sleeping conditions. Nat. Sci. Sleep. ume 12, 821–842 (2020).
De Zambotti, M., Cellini, N., GoldstoneE, A., Colrain, I. M. & Baker, F. C. Wearable sleep technology in clinical and research settings. Med Sci. Sports Exerc. 51, 1538–1557 (2019).
Yoon, H. & Choi, S. H. Technologies for sleep monitoring at home: wearables and nearables. Biomed. Eng. Lett. 13, 313–327 (2023).
Kwon, S., Kim, H. & Yeo, W.-H. Recent advances in wearable sensors and portable electronics for sleep monitoring. iScience 24, 102461 (2021).
Roomkham, S., Lovell, D., Cheung, J. & Perrin, D. Promises and challenges in the use of consumer-grade devices for sleep monitoring. IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng. 11, 53–67 (2018).
Birrer, V., Elgendi, M., Lambercy, O. & Menon, C. Evaluating reliability in wearable devices for sleep staging. NPJ Digit. Med. 7, 74 (2024).
Lee, T. et al. Accuracy of 11 wearable, nearable, and airable consumer sleep trackers: prospective multicenter validation study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 11, e50983 (2023).
Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159 (1977).
Menghini, L., Cellini, N., Goldstone, A., Baker, F. C. & de Zambotti, M. A standardized framework for testing the performance of sleep-tracking technology: step-by-step guidelines and open-source code. Sleep 44, zsaa170 (2021).
Griessenberger, H., Heib, D. P. J., Kunz, A. B., Hoedlmoser, K. & Schabus, M. Assessment of a wireless headband for automatic sleep scoring. Sleep. Breath. 17, 747–752 (2013).
Tonetti, L. et al. Polysomnographic validation of a wireless dry headband technology for sleep monitoring in healthy young adults. Physiol. Behav. 118, 185–188 (2013).
Cellini, N., McDevitt, E. A., Ricker, A. A., Rowe, K. M. & Mednick, S. C. Validation of an automated wireless system for sleep monitoring during daytime naps. Behav. Sleep. Med. 13, 157–168 (2015).
Arnal, P. J. et al. The Dreem Headband compared to polysomnography for electroencephalographic signal acquisition and sleep staging. Sleep 43, zsaa097 (2020).
The Dreem 3 Neuroband. Dreem headband: Beacon partners with Dreem to unlock EEG biomarkers. Beacon Biosignals. Available at: https://beacon.bio/dreem-headband/ (accessed 18 September 2024).
Guillot, A., Moutakanni, T., Harris, M., Arnal, P. J. & Thorey, V. 0616 Validation of a sleep headband for detecting obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep 43, A236–A236 (2020).
Lucey, B. P. et al. Comparison of a single-channel EEG sleep study to polysomnography. J. Sleep. Res. 25, 625–635 (2016).
Finan, P. H. et al. Validation of a wireless, self-application, ambulatory electroencephalographic sleep monitoring device in healthy volunteers. J. Clin. Sleep. Med. 12, 1443–1451 (2016).
Levendowski, D. J. et al. The accuracy, night-to-night variability, and stability of frontopolar sleep electroencephalography biomarkers. J. Clin. Sleep. Med. 13, 791–803 (2017).
Casciola, A. A. et al. A deep learning strategy for automatic sleep staging based on two-channel EEG headband data. Sensors 21, 3316 (2021).
Lucey, B. P. et al. Reduced non–rapid eye movement sleep is associated with tau pathology in early Alzheimer’s disease. Sci. Transl. Med 11, eaau6550 (2019).
Levendowski, D. J. et al. Head position during sleep: potential implications for patients with neurodegenerative disease. J. Alzheimer’s. Dis. 67, 631–638 (2019).
Levendowski, D. J. et al. Non-REM sleep with hypertonia in Parkinsonian Spectrum Disorders: a pilot investigation. Sleep. Med. 100, 501–510 (2022).
Liang, S.-F. et al. Development of an EOG-based automatic sleep-monitoring eye mask. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 64, 2977–2985 (2015).
Hsieh, T.-H., Liu, M.-H., Kuo, C.-E., Wang, Y.-H. & Liang, S.-F. Home-use and real-time sleep-staging system based on eye masks and mobile devices with a deep learning model. J. Med. Biol. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-021-00649-5 (2021).
Miyashita, H. et al. Association between electroencephalogram-derived sleep measures and the change of emotional status analyzed using voice patterns: observational pilot study. JMIR Form. Res. 4, e16880 (2020).
Carvalho, D., Mendes, T., Dias, A. I. & Leal, A. Interictal spike quantification in continuous spike–wave of sleep (CSWS): Clinical usefulness of a wearable EEG device. Epilepsy Behav. 104, 106902 (2020).
Myllymaa, S. et al. Assessment of the suitability of using a forehead EEG electrode set and chin EMG electrodes for sleep staging in polysomnography. J. Sleep. Res. 25, 636–645 (2016).
Matsumori, S. et al. HARU sleep: a deep learning-based sleep scoring system with wearable sheet-type frontal EEG sensors. IEEE Access 10, 13624–13632 (2022).
Voinescu, B. I., Wislowska, M. & Schabus, M. Assessment of SOMNOwatch plus EEG for sleep monitoring in healthy individuals. Physiol. Behav. 132, 73–78 (2014).
Fietze, I. et al. Actigraphy combined with EEG compared to polysomnography in sleep apnea patients. Physiol. Meas. 36, 385–396 (2015).
Mikkelsen, K. B., Villadsen, D. B., Otto, M. & Kidmose, P. Automatic sleep staging using ear-EEG. Biomed. Eng. Online 16, 111 (2017).
Mikkelsen, K. B. et al. Accurate whole-night sleep monitoring with dry-contact ear-EEG. Sci. Rep. 9, 16824 (2019).
Jørgensen, S. D., Zibrandtsen, I. C. & Kjaer, T. W. Ear‐EEG‐based sleep scoring in epilepsy: a comparison with scalp‐EEG. J. Sleep. Res. 29, e12921 (2020).
Jørgensen, S. D. et al. Long‐term ear‐EEG monitoring of sleep—A case study during shift work. J. Sleep Res. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.13853 (2023).
Tabar, Y. R. et al. At-home sleep monitoring using generic ear-EEG. Front Neurosci. 17, 987578 (2023).
Nakamura, T., Goverdovsky, V., Morrell, M. J. & Mandic, D. P. Automatic sleep monitoring using ear-EEG. IEEE J. Transl. Eng. Health Med. 5, 1–8 (2017).
Nakamura, T., Alqurashi, Y. D., Morrell, M. J. & Mandic, D. P. Hearables: automatic overnight sleep monitoring with standardized in-ear EEG sensor. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 67, 203–212 (2020).
Mikkelsen, K. B., Kappel, S. L., Hemmsen, M. C., Rank, M. L. & Kidmose, P. Discrimination of Sleep Spindles in Ear-EEG. In 2019 41st Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2019.8857114 6697–6700 (IEEE, 2019).
Tabar, Y. R., Mikkelsen, K. B., Rank, M. L., Christian Hemmsen, M. & Kidmose, P. Muscle activity detection during sleep by ear-EEG. In 2020 42nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC). https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC44109.2020.9176365 1007–1010 (IEEE, 2020).
Nakamura, T., Alqurashi, Y. D., Morrell, M. J. & Mandic, D. P. Automatic detection of drowsiness using in-ear EEG. In 2018 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2018.8489723 1–6 (IEEE, 2018).
Yarici, M. C. et al. Hearables: ear EEG based driver fatigue detection. arXiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.06406 (2023).
Sterr, A. et al. Sleep EEG derived from behind-the-ear electrodes (cEEGrid) compared to standard polysomnography: A proof of concept study. Front Hum. Neurosci. 12, 452 (2018).
Mikkelsen, K. B. et al. Machine‐learning‐derived sleep–wake staging from around‐the‐ear electroencephalogram outperforms manual scoring and actigraphy. J. Sleep. Res. 28, e12786 (2019).
da Silva Souto, C. F. et al. Flex-printed ear-EEG sensors for adequate sleep staging at home. Front Digit Health 3, 688122 (2021).
da Silva Souto, C. F., Pätzold, W., Paul, M., Debener, S. & Wolf, K. I. Pre-gelled electrode grid for self-applied EEG sleep monitoring at home. Front Neurosci. 16, 883966 (2022).
Mikkelsen, K. B. et al. Self-applied ear-EEG for sleep monitoring at home. In 2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC). https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC48229.2022.9871076 3135–3138 (IEEE, 2022).
Kaplan, R., Wang, Y., Loparo, K., Kelly, M. & Bootzin, R. Performance evaluation of an automated single-channel sleep–wake detection algorithm. Nat. Sci. Sleep 113 https://doi.org/10.2147/NSS.S71159 (2014).
Kaplan, R., Wang, Y., Loparo, K. & Kelly, M. Evaluation of an automated single-channel sleep staging algorithm. Nat. Sci. Sleep 101 https://doi.org/10.2147/NSS.S77888 (2015).
Kent, B. A. et al. Home EEG sleep assessment shows reduced slow‐wave sleep in mild–moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s. Dement. Transl. Res. Clin. Interv. 8, e12347 (2022).
Chou, C. A. et al. Comparison of single-channel EEG, actigraphy, and sleep diary in cognitively normal and mildly impaired older adults. Sleep Adv. 1, zpaa006 (2020).
Kataoka, H., Takatani, T. & Sugie, K. Two-channel portable biopotential recording system can detect REM sleep behavioral disorder: Validation study with a comparison of polysomnography. Parkinsons Dis. 2022, 1–5 (2022).
Sadeghi Bahmani, D. et al. Better objective sleep was associated with better subjective sleep and physical activity; results from an exploratory study under naturalistic conditions among persons with multiple sclerosis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 3522 (2020).
Barone, P. et al. The PRIAMO study: a multicenter assessment of nonmotor symptoms and their impact on quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 24, 1641–1649 (2009).
Zhao, Q.-F. et al. The prevalence of neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Affect Disord. 190, 264–271 (2016).
Braley, T. J. & Boudreau, E. A. Sleep disorders in multiple sclerosis. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 16, 50 (2016).
Ju, Y.-E. S. et al. Slow wave sleep disruption increases cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-β levels. Brain 140, 2104–2111 (2017).
Liguori, C. et al. Rapid eye movement sleep disruption and sleep fragmentation are associated with increased orexin-A cerebrospinal-fluid levels in mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol. Aging 40, 120–126 (2016).
Peeraully, T., Yong, M.-H., Chokroverty, S. & Tan, E.-K. Sleep and Parkinson’s disease: a review of case-control polysomnography studies. Mov. Disord. 27, 1729–1737 (2012).
Bubu, O. M. et al. Sleep, cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep 40, 1–18 (2017).
Zibrandtsen, I., Kidmose, P., Otto, M., Ibsen, J. & Kjaer, T. W. Case comparison of sleep features from ear-EEG and scalp-EEG. Sleep. Sci. 9, 69–72 (2016).
Nobili, L. et al. Sleep and epilepsy: a snapshot of knowledge and future research lines. J. Sleep. Res. 31, e13622 (2022).
Hombali, A. et al. Prevalence and correlates of sleep disorder symptoms in psychiatric disorders. Psychiatry Res. 279, 116–122 (2019).
Li, S. X., Lam, S. P., Yu, M. W. M., Zhang, J. & Wing, Y. K. Nocturnal sleep disturbances as a predictor of suicide attempts among psychiatric outpatients. J. Clin. Psychiatry 71, 1440–1446 (2010).
van den Berg, J. F. et al. Sleep in depression and anxiety disorders. J. Clin. Psychiatry 70, 1105–1113 (2009).
Miyata, S. et al. Performance of an ambulatory electroencephalogram sleep monitor in patients with psychiatric disorders. J. Sleep. Res. 30, e13273 (2021).
Zambelli, Z. et al. Exploring the feasibility and acceptability of a sleep wearable headband among a community sample of chronic pain individuals: An at-home observational study. Digit Health 8, 205520762210975 (2022).
Woo, A. & Ratnayake, G. Sleep and pain management: a review. Pain. Manag. 10, 261–273 (2020).
Mathias, J. L., Cant, M. L. & Burke, A. L. J. Sleep disturbances and sleep disorders in adults living with chronic pain: a meta-analysis. Sleep. Med 52, 198–210 (2018).
Onton, J. A., Matthews, S. C., Kang, D. Y. & Coleman, T. P. In-home sleep recordings in military veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder reveal less REM and deep sleep <1 Hz. Front Hum. Neurosci. 12, 196 (2018).
Onton, J. & Le, L. D. Amount of <1Hz deep sleep correlates with melatonin dose in military veterans with PTSD. Neurobiol. Sleep. Circadian Rhythms 11, 100072 (2021).
Milanak, M. E. et al. Traumatic event exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder, and sleep disturbances in a national sample of U.S. adults. J. Trauma Stress 32, 14–22 (2019).
Baird, T. et al. Sleep disturbances in Australian Vietnam veterans with and without posttraumatic stress disorder. J. Clin. Sleep. Med. 14, 745–752 (2018).
McCarthy, E., DeViva, J. C., Norman, S. B., Southwick, S. M. & Pietrzak, R. H. Self-assessed sleep quality partially mediates the relationship between PTSD symptoms and functioning and quality of life in U.S. veterans: Results from the National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study. Psychol. Trauma 11, 869–876 (2019).
Brandt, R. et al. Sleep quality and glycaemic variability in a real-life setting in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia 64, 2159–2169 (2021).
Denic-Roberts, H., Costacou, T. & Orchard, T. J. Subjective sleep disturbances and glycemic control in adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes: The Pittsburgh’s Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications study. Diab. Res. Clin. Pract. 119, 1–12 (2016).
Cunha, M. C. B., da, Zanetti, M. L. & Hass, V. J. Sleep quality in type 2 diabetics. Rev. Lat. Am. Enferm. 16, 850–855 (2008).
Jean, R. et al. Effects of deep sedation on sleep in critically ill medical patients on mechanical ventilation. J. Sleep. Res. 29, e12894 (2020).
Ely, E. W. Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit. JAMA 291, 1753 (2004).
Lin, S.-M. et al. The impact of delirium on the survival of mechanically ventilated patients*. Crit. Care Med. 32, 2254–2259 (2004).
Ouimet, S., Kavanagh, B. P., Gottfried, S. B. & Skrobik, Y. Incidence, risk factors and consequences of ICU delirium. Intensive Care Med. 33, 66–73 (2007).
Romagnoli, S. et al. Sleep duration and architecture in non-intubated intensive care unit patients: an observational study. Sleep. Med. 70, 79–87 (2020).
Kafashan, M. M. et al. Perioperative sleep in geriatric cardiac surgical patients: a feasibility study using a wireless wearable device. Br. J. Anaesth. 126, e205–e208 (2021).
Finan, P. H. et al. Multimodal assessment of sleep in men and women during treatment for opioid use disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend. 207, 107698 (2020).
Dunn, K. E. et al. Wireless electroencephalography (EEG) to monitor sleep among patients being withdrawn from opioids: Evidence of feasibility and utility. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 30, 1016–1023 (2022).
Zhang, R. et al. Sleep disturbances are associated with cortical and subcortical atrophy in alcohol use disorder. Transl. Psychiatry 11, 428 (2021).
Koob, G. F. & Colrain, I. M. Alcohol use disorder and sleep disturbances: a feed-forward allostatic framework. Neuropsychopharmacology 45, 141–165 (2020).
Abe, Y. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ambulatory polysomnography with electroencephalogram for detection of sleep bruxism–related masticatory muscle activity. J. Clin. Sleep. Med. 19, 379–392 (2023).
Levendowski, D. J. et al. The accuracy and reliability of sleep staging and sleep biomarkers in patients with isolated rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder. Nat. Sci. Sleep. 15, 323–331 (2023).
Fava, C., Montagnana, M., Favaloro, E., Guidi, G. & Lippi, G. Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and cardiovascular diseases. Semin Thromb. Hemost. 37, 280–297 (2011).
Caples, S. M., Garcia-Touchard, A. & Somers, V. K. Sleep-disordered breathing and cardiovascular risk. Sleep 30, 291–303 (2007).
Quan, S. F. Sleep disturbances and their relationship to cardiovascular disease. Am. J. Lifestyle Med 3, 55S–59S (2009).
Szczygiel, E. J., Cho, S. & Tucker, R. M. Characterization of the relationships between sleep duration, quality, architecture, and chemosensory function in nonobese females. Chem. Senses 43, 223–228 (2018).
Szczygiel, E. J., Cho, S., Snyder, M. K. & Tucker, R. M. Associations between chemosensory function, sweet taste preference, and the previous night’s sleep in non-obese males. Food Qual. Prefer 75, 105–112 (2019).
Yang, C.-L., Schnepp, J. & Tucker, R. Increased hunger, food cravings, food reward, and portion size selection after sleep curtailment in women without obesity. Nutrients 11, 663 (2019).
Kim, H., Jeong, G., Park, Y. K. & Kang, S. W. Sleep quality and nutritional intake in subjects with sleep issues according to perceived stress levels. J. Lifestyle Med. 8, 42–49 (2018).
Grandner, M. A., Jackson, N., Gerstner, J. R. & Knutson, K. L. Sleep symptoms associated with intake of specific dietary nutrients. J. Sleep. Res. 23, 22–34 (2014).
Yap, Y. et al. Daily relations between stress and electroencephalography-assessed sleep: A 15-day intensive longitudinal design with ecological momentary assessments. Ann. Behav. Med. 56, 1144–1156 (2022).
Liu, X. et al. Associations of perceived stress, resilience and social support with sleep disturbance among community-dwelling adults. Stress Health 32, 578–586 (2016).
Lee, S.-Y., Wuertz, C., Rogers, R. & Chen, Y.-P. Stress and sleep disturbances in female college students. Am. J. Health Behav. 37, 851–858 (2013).
Leggett, A., Burgard, S. & Zivin, K. The impact of sleep disturbance on the association between stressful life events and depressive symptoms. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 71, 118–128 (2016).
Cassim, T. Z. et al. Effects of exercise on the sleep microarchitecture in the aging brain: a study on a sedentary sample. Front Syst. Neurosci. 16, 855107 (2022).
Wang, X. & Youngstedt, S. D. Sleep quality improved following a single session of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise in older women: Results from a pilot study. J. Sport Health Sci. 3, 338–342 (2014).
Stavrou, V. T. et al. Sleep quality’s effect on vigilance and perceptual ability in adolescent and adult athletes. J. Sports Med. 2021, 1–9 (2021).
Penggalih, M. H. S. T., Sofro, Z. M., Oktarini, K. S. & Ningrum, R. K. The correlation between sleep quality and performance in football athlete. Sleep. Biol. Rhythms 19, 195–200 (2021).
Mah, C. D., Kezirian, E. J., Marcello, B. M. & Dement, W. C. Poor sleep quality and insufficient sleep of a collegiate student-athlete population. Sleep. Health 4, 251–257 (2018).
Pépin, J.-L. et al. Greatest changes in objective sleep architecture during COVID-19 lockdown in night owls with increased REM sleep. Sleep 44, zsab075 (2021).
Dunn, L. K. et al. Anesthesiology resident night float duty alters sleep patterns. Anesthesiology 131, 401–409 (2019).
Debellemaniere, E. et al. Performance of an ambulatory dry-EEG device for auditory closed-loop stimulation of sleep slow oscillations in the home environment. Front Hum. Neurosci. 12, 88 (2018).
Waeber, A. et al. Acoustic stimulation time-locked to the beginning of sleep apnea events reduces oxygen desaturations: a pilot-study. Sleep. Med 78, 38–42 (2021).
Zhang, Z. et al. Reduction in time-to-sleep through EEG based brain state detection and audio stimulation. In 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) 8050–8053. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2015.7320261 (IEEE, 2015).
Spina, M.-A. et al. Does providing feedback and guidance on sleep perceptions using sleep wearables improve insomnia? Findings from “Novel Insomnia Treatment Experiment”: a randomized controlled trial. Sleep 46, zsad167 (2023).
Danker-Hopfe, H. et al. Interrater reliability for sleep scoring according to the Rechtschaffen & Kales and the new AASM standard. J. Sleep. Res. 18, 74–84 (2009).
Liang, Z. & Chapa Martell, M. A. Validity of consumer activity wristbands and wearable EEG for measuring overall sleep parameters and sleep structure in free-living conditions. J. Health. Inf. Res. 2, 152–178 (2018).
Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on Medical Devices, Amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and Repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC (Text with EEA Relevance.). Official Journal of the European Union https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32017R0745 (2017).
MedTech Europe Survey Report analysing the availability of Medical Devices in 2022 in connection to the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) implementation. https://www.medtecheurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/medtech-europe-survey-report-analysing-the-availability-of-medical-devices-in-2022-in-connection-to-the-medical-device-regulation-mdr-implementation.pdf (2022).
How to determine if your product is a medical device. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/classify-your-medical-device/how-determine-if-your-product-medical-device (2022).
FDA 510(k) Clearances; FDA. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-approvals-denials-and-clearances/510k-clearances (2021).
FDA classify your medical device; FDA. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/overview-device-regulation/classify-your-medical-device (2020).
European Commission. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the council on adapting non-contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence (AI Liability Directive). Brussels, 28.9.2022 COM(2022) 496 final, 2022/0303 (COD). European Comission https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-09/1_1_197605_prop_dir_ai_en.pdf (2022).
Proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. European Commission. Policy and Legislation https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/proposal-regulation-laying-down-harmonised-rules-artificial-intelligence#:~:text=The%20Proposal%20for%20a%20Regulation,limited%20risk%2C%20and%20minimal%20risk (2021).
A European approach to artificial intelligence. European Commission https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/european-approach-artificial-intelligence (2023).
IEEE Std 7000-2021. IEEE Standard Model Process for Addressing Ethical Concerns during System Design. (2021).
FDA framework for FDA’s Real-World Evidence Program; FDA. https://www.fda.gov/media/120060/download (2021).
Driving the digital transformation of Germany’s healthcare system for the good of patients. The Act to Improve Healthcare Provision through Digitalisation and Innovation (Digital Healthcare Act – DVG) https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de//en/digital-healthcare-act.html (2019).
Kaushik, P., Gupta, A., Roy, P. P. & Dogra, D. P. EEG-based age and gender prediction using deep BLSTM-LSTM network model. IEEE Sens. J. 19, 2634–2641 (2019).
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/679/contents# (2016).
Supporting the implementation of Union policy and law regarding cybersecurity. https://www.enisa.europa.eu/topics/cybersecurity-policy/nis-directive-new (2023).
Banerjee, S. (Sy), Hemphill, T. & Longstreet, P. Wearable devices and healthcare: data sharing and privacy. Inf. Soc. 34, 49–57 (2018).
Federal Register: Medicare Program; Revisions to payment policies under the physician fee schedule and other revisions to part B for CY 2019. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/11/23/2018-24170/medicare-program-revisions-to-payment-policies-under-the-physician-fee-schedule-and-other-revisions#h-81 (2018).
Shahid, A., Wilkinson, K., Marcu, S. & Shapiro, C. M. Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). In STOP, THAT and One Hundred Other Sleep Scales 279–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9893-4_67 (Springer New York, 2011).
Johns, M. W. A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: the Epworth sleepiness scale. Sleep. 14, 540–545 (1991).
Rofail, L. M., Wong, K. K. H., Unger, G., Marks, G. B. & Grunstein, R. R. The utility of single-channel nasal airflow pressure transducer in the diagnosis of OSA at home. Sleep 33, 1097–1105 (2010).
Rofail, L. M., Wong, K. K. H., Unger, G., Marks, G. B. & Grunstein, R. R. Comparison between a single-channel nasal airflow device and oximetry for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep 33, 1106–1114 (2010).
Araújo, I. et al. Diagnosis of sleep apnea in patients with stable chronic heart failure using a portable sleep test diagnostic device. Sleep. Breath. 22, 749–755 (2018).
Crowley, K. E. et al. Evaluation of a single-channel nasal pressure device to assess obstructive sleep apnea risk in laboratory and home environments. J. Clin. Sleep. Med. 09, 109–116 (2013).
Dafna, E., Tarasiuk, A. & Zigel, Y. Sleep staging using nocturnal sound analysis. Sci. Rep. 8, 13474 (2018).
Lauteslager, T., Kampakis, S., Williams, A. J., Maslik, M. & Siddiqui, F. Performance evaluation of the circadia contactless breathing monitor and sleep analysis algorithm for sleep stage classification. in 2020 42nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC) 5150–5153. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC44109.2020.9175419 (IEEE, 2020).
Dong, X. et al. Validation of Fitbit Charge 4 for assessing sleep in Chinese patients with chronic insomnia: A comparison against polysomnography and actigraphy. PLoS One 17, e0275287 (2022).
Miller, D. J., Sargent, C. & Roach, G. D. A validation of six wearable devices for estimating sleep, heart rate and heart rate variability in healthy adults. Sensors 22, 6317 (2022).
Menghini, L., Yuksel, D., Goldstone, A., Baker, F. C. & de Zambotti, M. Performance of Fitbit Charge 3 against polysomnography in measuring sleep in adolescent boys and girls. Chronobiol. Int 38, 1010–1022 (2021).
Ghorbani, S. et al. Multi-night at-home evaluation of improved sleep detection and classification with a memory-enhanced consumer sleep tracker. Nat. Sci. Sleep. 14, 645–660 (2022).
Rocknathan, S.-K. et al. Empirical evaluation of consumer EEG and actigraphy devices for home-based sleep assessment. In 2017 International Conference on Orange Technologies (ICOT). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOT.2017.8336086 49–52 (IEEE, 2017).
Kawai, K. et al. Comparison of polysomnography, single-channel electroencephalogram, Fitbit, and sleep logs in patients with psychiatric disorders: Cross-sectional study. J. Med. Internet Res. 25, e51336 (2023).
Sleep Profiler. https://www.advancedbrainmonitoring.com/products/sleep-profiler.
Cognionics. http://cognionics.com/index.php/32-uncategorised/100-dry-sleep-eeg-headband-2.
Sleepgraph. https://www.proassist.co.jp/SleepGraph/.
Nonoue, S. et al. Inter-scorer reliability of sleep assessment using EEG and EOG recording system in comparison to polysomnography. Sleep. Biol. Rhythms 15, 39–48 (2017).
Somnowatch. https://somnomedics.de/en/solutions/sleep_diagnostics/actigraphy/somnowatch-plus-actigraphy/.
Hof Zum Berge, A. et al. Portable PSG for sleep stage monitoring in sports: Assessment of SOMNOwatch plus EEG. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 20, 713–721 (2020).
Zhuo Zhang et al. Automatic sleep onset detection using single EEG sensor. In 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 2265–2268. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2014.6944071 (IEEE, 2014).
Sleepscope. https://sleepwell.co.jp/.
Yoshida, M. et al. Validation of a portable single-channel EEG monitoring system. J. Oral. Sleep. Med. 1, 140–147 (2015).
Kappel, S. L., Rank, M. L., Toft, H. O., Andersen, M. & Kidmose, P. Dry-contact electrode ear-EEG. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 66, 150–158 (2019).
Zmachine Insight+. https://www.generalsleep.com/zmachine-insight.html.
Gnarra, O. et al. Exploring the association linking head position and sleep architecture to motor impairment in Parkinson’s disease: an exploratory study. J. Pers. Med 13, 1591 (2023).
Cho, Y. et al. Autonomic dysregulation during sleep in Parkinsonian spectrum disorders—a proof of concept. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 117, 105905 (2023).
Funding
Open access funding provided by Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
K.M. and M.E. researched data for the article, made substantial contributions to discussions of the content, wrote the article, and reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission. M.E. led and designed the study. K.M., M.E., and C.M. provided substantial contributions to the discussion of content and reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Markov, K., Elgendi, M. & Menon, C. EEG-based headset sleep wearable devices. npj Biosensing 1, 12 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44328-024-00013-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44328-024-00013-y
