ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Evaluating the Feasibility of Low-Cost, Contactless Consumer Sleep-Tracking Devices as Measurement Tools for Preliminary Sleep Research.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Compared to polysomnography (PSG) and actigraphy, contactless consumer sleep-tracking devices (CCSTDs) are low-cost, user-friendly, and non-disruptive to sleep. This study evaluated the performance of two inexpensive, representative first-generation Chinese-made CCSTDs (the iSleep S200G and Sleep Dot B501) against PSG and actigraphy, using standardized validation protocols. The objective was to assess their feasibility as alternatives for large-scale, long-term preliminary research that does not rely on single-day high-precision sleep data. Eleven healthy young adults (mean age = 26.5 ± 4.8 years) participated in a two-night sleep laboratory study using four devices in parallel. Compared with PSG, the iSleep S200G exhibited no significant differences in TST and SE, while the Sleep Dot B501 showed no significant differences in TST, SE, SOL, and WASO. The intraclass correlation coefficient values and epoch-by-epoch agreement of the iSleep S200G and Sleep Dot B501 were as good as or better than those of actigraphy. Notably, the epoch-by-epoch agreement metric of both devices was not inferior to other consumer sleep-tracking devices already used for long-term, large-scale sleep monitoring. Therefore, even within budget constraints, first-generation CCSTDs can effectively meet the requirements for long-term, large-scale sleep monitoring without sleep stage detection. The results also provided data references for researchers using iteratively upgraded CCSTDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.