Study record · comparative · 2021

Performance of seven consumer sleep-tracking devices compared with polysomnography

Chinoy ED, Cuellar JA, Huwa KE, Jameson JT, Watson CH, Bessman SC, et al.

Sleep, 44(5), zsaa291 · 2021

Why this study matters to CircaTest

A 7-device same-protocol comparison from the US Naval Health Research Center. Comparable in spirit to Schyvens 2025 but earlier (2021), with different device set including Garmin Fenix 5S and Garmin Vivosmart 3. Useful editorial counterweight to Schyvens for cross-validation: the Garmin underperformance shows up in both studies.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Consumer sleep-tracking devices are widely used and becoming more technologically advanced, creating strong interest from researchers and clinicians for their possible use as alternatives to standard actigraphy.…

Read the full abstract on the source →

Source: PUBMED · Excerpt for fair-use commentary; full abstract via the source link

Population

Sample size

n = 34

Age

28.1 ± 3.9 years

Reference standard

psg

34 healthy young adults (22 female), three consecutive in-laboratory nights including a disrupted-sleep condition. Tested with PSG, actigraphy, and 7 consumer devices simultaneously.

Devices and metrics

Fitbit Alta HR

All studies for this device →

Metric	Value	95% CI	Note
Sensitivity	93%	—	Lower bound across the device set.

Cite this study

Chinoy ED, Cuellar JA, Huwa KE, Jameson JT, Watson CH, Bessman SC, et al. (2021). Performance of seven consumer sleep-tracking devices compared with polysomnography. Sleep, 44(5), zsaa291. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsaa291

AI-assembled record · errors are possible

This page was built and is maintained by AI working from the published abstract and PubMed metadata for the cited study. CircaTest does not have access to the full text of every paper in its corpus. Categories of error that have happened on this site and could happen again include:

Per-device metric values inferred when the abstract reports only an aggregate range
Stage-specific accuracy figures pulled from secondary sources rather than the primary paper
Sample size or population characteristics missing from the abstract
Editorial framing in the curatorial note that overstates the study's actual scope
Year typos and author-name transliteration errors

Where a metric value reads see source, the published abstract did not contain that value and CircaTest deliberately left it null rather than guess. For any decision that depends on the underlying numbers, please consult the linked PubMed, PMC, or DOI source directly. Corrections are welcome via the about page.

Source links

Added to the CircaTest meta-analysis on 2026-04-06. How CircaTest evaluates studies →