Purpose The commercial market is saturated with technologies that claim to collect proficient, free-living sleep measurements despite a severe lack of independent third-party evaluations. Therefore, the present study evaluated the accuracy of various commercial sleep technologies during in-home sleeping conditions. Materials and Methods Data collection spanned 98 separate nights of ad libitum sleep from five healthy adults. Prior to bedtime, participants utilized nine popular sleep devices while concurrently wearing a previously validated electroencephalography (EEG)-based device. Data collected from the commercial devices were extracted for later comparison against EEG to determine degrees of accuracy. Sleep and wake summary outcomes as well as sleep staging metrics were evaluated, where available, for each device. Results Total sleep time (TST), total wake time (TWT), and sleep efficiency (SE) were measured with greater accuracy (lower percent errors) and limited bias by Fitbit Ionic [mean absolute percent error, bias (95% confidence interval); TST: 9.90%, 0.25 (−0.11, 0.61); TWT: 25.64%, −0.17 (−0.28, −0.06); SE: 3.49%, 0.65 (−0.82, 2.12)] and Oura smart ring [TST: 7.39%, 0.19 (0.04, 0.35); TWT: 36.29%, −0.18 (−0.31, −0.04); SE: 5.42%, 1.66 (0.17, 3.15)], whereas all other devices demonstrated a propensity to over or underestimate at least one if not all of the aforementioned sleep metrics. No commercial sleep technology appeared to accurately quantify sleep stages. Conclusion Generally speaking, commercial sleep technologies displayed lower error and bias values when quantifying sleep/wake states as compared to sleep staging durations. Still, these findings revealed that there is a remarkably high degree of variability in the accuracy of commercial sleep technologies, which further emphasizes that continuous evaluations of newly developed sleep technologies are vital. End-users may then be able to determine more accurately which sleep device is most suited for their desired application(s).

Comparisons of countermovement jump force-time characteristics among NCAA Division I American football athletes: use of principal component analysis. J Strength Cond Res 36(2): 411-419, 2022-This study aimed to reduce the dimensionality of countermovement jump (CMJ) force-time characteristics and evaluate differences among positional groups (skills, hybrid, linemen, and specialists) within National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) division I American football. Eighty-two football athletes performed 2 maximal effort, no arm-swing, CMJs on force plates. The average absolute and relative (e.g., power/body mass) metrics were analyzed using analysis of variance and principal component analysis procedures (p , 0.05). Linemen had the heaviest body mass and produced greater absolute forces than hybrid and skills but had lower propulsive abilities demonstrated by longer propulsive phase durations and greater eccentric to concentric mean force ratios. Skills and hybrid produced the most relative concentric and eccentric forces and power, as well as modified reactive strength indexes (RSI MOD ). Skills (46.7 6 4.6 cm) achieved the highest jump height compared with hybrid (42.8 6 5.5 cm), specialists (38.7 6 4.0 cm), and linemen (34.1 6 5.3 cm). Four principal components explained 89.5% of the variance in force-time metrics. Dimensions were described as the (a) explosive transferability to concentric power (RSI MOD , concentric power, and eccentric to concentric forces) (b) powerful eccentric loading (eccentric power and velocity), (c) countermovement strategy (depth and duration), and (d) jump height and power. The many positional differences in CMJ forcetime characteristics may inform strength and conditioning program designs tailored to each position and identify important explanatory metrics to routinely monitor by position. The overwhelming number of force-time metrics to select from may be reduced using principal component analysis methods, although practitioners should still consider the various metric's applicability and reliability.

Despite prolific demands and sales, commercial sleep assessment is primarily limited by the inability to “measure” sleep itself; rather, secondary physiological signals are captured, combined, and subsequently classified as sleep or a specific sleep state. Using markedly different approaches compared with gold-standard polysomnography, wearable companies purporting to measure sleep have rapidly developed during recent decades. These devices are advertised to monitor sleep via sensors such as accelerometers, electrocardiography, photoplethysmography, and temperature, alone or in combination, to estimate sleep stage based upon physiological patterns. However, without regulatory oversight, this market has historically manufactured products of poor accuracy, and rarely with third-party validation. Specifically, these devices vary in their capacities to capture a signal of interest, process the signal, perform physiological calculations, and ultimately classify a state (sleep vs. wake) or sleep stage during a given time domain. Device performance depends largely on success in all the aforementioned requirements. Thus, this review provides context surrounding the complex hardware and software developed by wearable device companies in their attempts to estimate sleep-related phenomena, and outlines considerations and contributing factors for overall device success.