Comparison analysis between standard polysomnographic data and in-ear-EEG signals: A preliminary study

Sleep Advances, 2025 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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors Palo, Gianpaolo, Fiorillo, Luigi, Monachino, Giuliana, Bechny, Michal, Walti, Michel, Meier, Elias, di Ruffia, Francesca Pentimalli Biscaretti, Melnykowycz, Mark, Tzovara, Athina, Agostini, Valentina, Faraci, Francesca Dalia
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published 18.01.2024
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
DOI10.48550/arxiv.2401.10107

Cover

More Information
Summary:Sleep Advances, 2025 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-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 four-hour signals recorded from ten healthy subjects aged 18 to 60 years. Recordings are analyzed following two complementary approaches: (i) a hypnogram-based analysis aimed at assessing the agreement between PSG and in-ear-EEG-derived hypnograms; and (ii) a feature-based 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 < 0.001) 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 -NREM, and 0.67 +/- 0.10 -REM) 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.
DOI:10.48550/arxiv.2401.10107