Comparison analysis between standard polysomnographic data and in-ear-electroencephalography signals: a preliminary study.
Options
BORIS DOI
Date of Publication
2024
Publication Type
Article
Division/Institute
Contributor
Palo, Gianpaolo | |
Fiorillo, Luigi | |
Wälti, Michel | |
Meier, Elias | |
Pentimalli Biscaretti di Ruffia, Francesca | |
Melnykowycz, Mark | |
Agostini, Valentina | |
Faraci, Francesca Dalia |
Subject(s)
Series
SLEEP Advances
ISSN or ISBN (if monograph)
2632-5012
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Language
English
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
39735738
Uncontrolled Keywords
Description
Study Objectives
Polysomnography (PSG) currently serves as the benchmark for evaluating sleep disorders. Its discomfort makes long-term monitoring unfeasible, leading to bias in sleep quality assessment. Hence, less invasive, cost-effective, and portable alternatives need to be explored. One promising contender is the in-ear-electroencephalography (EEG) sensor. This study aims to establish a methodology to assess the similarity between the single-channel in-ear-EEG and standard PSG derivations.Methods
The study involves 4-hour signals recorded from 10 healthy subjects aged 18-60 years. Recordings are analyzed following two complementary approaches: (1) a hypnogram-based analysis aimed at assessing the agreement between PSG and in-ear-EEG-derived hypnograms; and (2) a feature- and analysis-based on time- and frequency-domain feature extraction, unsupervised feature selection, and definition of Feature-based Similarity Index via Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD-FSI).Results
We find large variability between PSG and in-ear-EEG hypnograms scored by the same sleep expert according to Cohen's kappa metric, with significantly greater agreements for PSG scorers than for in-ear-EEG scorers (p < .001) based on Fleiss' kappa metric. On average, we demonstrate a high similarity between PSG and in-ear-EEG signals in terms of JSD-FSI-0.79 ± 0.06-awake, 0.77 ± 0.07-nonrapid eye movement, and 0.67 ± 0.10-rapid eye movement-and in line with the similarity values computed independently on standard PSG channel combinations.Conclusions
In-ear-EEG is a valuable solution for home-based sleep monitoring; however, further studies with a larger and more heterogeneous dataset are needed.
Polysomnography (PSG) currently serves as the benchmark for evaluating sleep disorders. Its discomfort makes long-term monitoring unfeasible, leading to bias in sleep quality assessment. Hence, less invasive, cost-effective, and portable alternatives need to be explored. One promising contender is the in-ear-electroencephalography (EEG) sensor. This study aims to establish a methodology to assess the similarity between the single-channel in-ear-EEG and standard PSG derivations.Methods
The study involves 4-hour signals recorded from 10 healthy subjects aged 18-60 years. Recordings are analyzed following two complementary approaches: (1) a hypnogram-based analysis aimed at assessing the agreement between PSG and in-ear-EEG-derived hypnograms; and (2) a feature- and analysis-based on time- and frequency-domain feature extraction, unsupervised feature selection, and definition of Feature-based Similarity Index via Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD-FSI).Results
We find large variability between PSG and in-ear-EEG hypnograms scored by the same sleep expert according to Cohen's kappa metric, with significantly greater agreements for PSG scorers than for in-ear-EEG scorers (p < .001) based on Fleiss' kappa metric. On average, we demonstrate a high similarity between PSG and in-ear-EEG signals in terms of JSD-FSI-0.79 ± 0.06-awake, 0.77 ± 0.07-nonrapid eye movement, and 0.67 ± 0.10-rapid eye movement-and in line with the similarity values computed independently on standard PSG channel combinations.Conclusions
In-ear-EEG is a valuable solution for home-based sleep monitoring; however, further studies with a larger and more heterogeneous dataset are needed.
File(s)
File | File Type | Format | Size | License | Publisher/Copright statement | Content | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
zpae087.pdf | text | Adobe PDF | 3.33 MB | published |