Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 28, 2025
Physical Activity Measurement in Children Accepting Table Tennis Training
Published on: July 27, 2022
Validation of actigraphy sleep metrics in children aged 8 to 16 years: considerations for device type, placement and
K A Meredith-Jones1, J J Haszard2, A Graham-DeMello3
1Department of Medicine, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand. kim.meredith-jones@otago.ac.nz.
Background:
Actigraphy is often used to measure sleep in pediatric populations, despite little confirmatory evidence of the accuracy of existing sleep/wake algorithms. The aim of this study was to determine the performance of 11 sleep algorithms in relation to overnight polysomnography in children and adolescents.
Methods:
One hundred thirty-seven participants aged 8-16 years wore two Actigraph wGT3X-BT (wrist, waist) and three Axivity AX3 (wrist, back, thigh) accelerometers over 24-h. Gold standard measures of sleep were obtained using polysomnography (PSG; Embletta MPRPG, ST + Proxy and TX Proxy) in the home environment, overnight. Epoch by epoch comparisons of the Sadeh (two algorithms), Cole-Kripke (three algorithms), Tudor-Locke (four algorithms), Count-Scaled (CS), and HDCZA algorithms were undertaken. Mean differences from PSG values were calculated for various sleep outcomes.
Results:
Overall, sensitivities were high (mean ± SD: 91.8%, ± 5.6%) and specificities moderate (63.8% ± 13.8%), with the HDCZA algorithm performing the best overall in terms of specificity (87.5% ± 1.3%) and accuracy (86.4% ± 0.9%). Sleep outcome measures were more accurately measured by devices worn at the wrist than the hip, thigh or lower back, with the exception of sleep efficiency where the reverse was true. The CS algorithm provided consistently accurate measures of sleep onset: the mean (95%CI) difference at the wrist with Axivity was 2 min (-6; -14,) and the offset was 10 min (5, -19). Several algorithms provided accurate measures of sleep quantity at the wrist, showing differences with PSG of just 1-18 min a night for sleep period time and 5-22 min for total sleep time. Accuracy was generally higher for sleep efficiency than for frequency of night wakings or wake after sleep onset. The CS algorithm was more accurate at assessing sleep period time, with narrower 95% limits of agreement compared to the HDCZA (CS:-165 to 172 min; HDCZA: -212 to 250 min).
Conclusion:
Although the performance of existing count-based sleep algorithms varies markedly, wrist-worn devices provide more accurate measures of most sleep measures compared to other sites. Overall, the HDZCA algorithm showed the greatest accuracy, although the most appropriate algorithm depends on the sleep measure of focus.
