4.6 Review

A Systematic Review of Sensing Technologies for Wearable Sleep Staging

Journal

SENSORS
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s21051562

Keywords

sleep; wearables; sleep staging; sleep sensors; sleep scoring

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Designing wearable systems for sleep detection and staging is challenging due to various constraints, with the most common sensing modalities being EEG-based and PPG-based systems. EEG-based systems are the most accurate, capable of identifying all sleep stages, while PPG-based systems are simpler to use for wearable monitoring but cannot identify all sleep stages.
Designing wearable systems for sleep detection and staging is extremely challenging due to the numerous constraints associated with sensing, usability, accuracy, and regulatory requirements. Several researchers have explored the use of signals from a subset of sensors that are used in polysomnography (PSG), whereas others have demonstrated the feasibility of using alternative sensing modalities. In this paper, a systematic review of the different sensing modalities that have been used for wearable sleep staging is presented. Based on a review of 90 papers, 13 different sensing modalities are identified. Each sensing modality is explored to identify signals that can be obtained from it, the sleep stages that can be reliably identified, the classification accuracy of systems and methods using the sensing modality, as well as the usability constraints of the sensor in a wearable system. It concludes that the two most common sensing modalities in use are those based on electroencephalography (EEG) and photoplethysmography (PPG). EEG-based systems are the most accurate, with EEG being the only sensing modality capable of identifying all the stages of sleep. PPG-based systems are much simpler to use and better suited for wearable monitoring but are unable to identify all the sleep stages.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available