{"about":{"site":"https://codewithpapers.app","non_affiliation":"Code with Papers and Syntology are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Papers with Code, Meta, or the pwc-archive mirror.","licence":"CC BY-SA 4.0","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","attribution":"https://codewithpapers.app/attribution","modified":"archive material modified by Syntology; see the attribution page"},"url":"/paper/comparison-analysis-between-standard","title":"Comparison analysis between standard polysomnographic data and in-ear-EEG signals: A preliminary study","arxiv_id":"2401.10107","date":"2024-01-18","proceeding":null,"authors":["Gianpaolo Palo","Luigi Fiorillo","Giuliana Monachino","Michal Bechny","Michel Walti","Elias Meier","Francesca Pentimalli Biscaretti di Ruffia","Mark Melnykowycz","Athina Tzovara","Valentina Agostini","Francesca Dalia Faraci"],"abstract":"Study Objectives: Polysomnography (PSG) currently serves as the benchmark for evaluating sleep disorders. Its discomfort makes long-term monitoring unfeasible, leading to bias in sleep quality assessment. Hence, less invasive, cost-effective, and portable alternatives need to be explored. One promising contender is the in-ear-EEG sensor. This study aims to establish a methodology to assess the similarity between the single-channel in-ear-EEG and standard PSG derivations. Methods: The study involves four-hour signals recorded from ten healthy subjects aged 18 to 60 years. Recordings are analyzed following two complementary approaches: (i) a hypnogram-based analysis aimed at assessing the agreement between PSG and in-ear-EEG-derived hypnograms; and (ii) a feature-based analysis based on time- and frequency- domain feature extraction, unsupervised feature selection, and definition of Feature-based Similarity Index via Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD-FSI). Results: We find large variability between PSG and in-ear-EEG hypnograms scored by the same sleep expert according to Cohen's kappa metric, with significantly greater agreements for PSG scorers than for in-ear-EEG scorers (p < 0.001) based on Fleiss' kappa metric. On average, we demonstrate a high similarity between PSG and in-ear-EEG signals in terms of JSD-FSI (0.79 +/- 0.06 -awake, 0.77 +/- 0.07 -NREM, and 0.67 +/- 0.10 -REM) and in line with the similarity values computed independently on standard PSG-channel-combinations. Conclusions: In-ear-EEG is a valuable solution for home-based sleep monitoring, however further studies with a larger and more heterogeneous dataset are needed.","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10107v4","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.10107v4.pdf","source":{"archive":"pwc-archive (Hugging Face), CC BY-SA 4.0","snapshot":"2025-07-28","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","row_kind":"abstracts"},"code_links":[{"paper_slug":"comparison-analysis-between-standard","repo_url":"https://github.com/gianpaolopalo13/in_ear_eeg_vs_psg","is_official":1,"mentioned_in_paper":1,"mentioned_in_github":1,"framework":"none","reach":null}],"tasks":[{"task_slug":"eeg-1","task_name":"EEG"},{"task_slug":"sleep-quality","task_name":"Sleep Quality"},{"task_slug":"feature-selection","task_name":"feature selection"}],"methods":[],"datasets_introduced":[],"methods_introduced":[],"results":[],"syntology":{"atlas_url":null,"mcp":null,"developers":"https://syntology.ai/developers"},"arxiv_metadata":null,"syntology_extracted_results":null}