# Comparison analysis between standard polysomnographic data and in-ear-EEG signals: A preliminary study

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10107 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10107/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 4 of its 53 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Jan 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Dreem Open Datasets: Multi-Scored Sleep Datasets to compare Human and Automated sleep staging](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.03221/) (2019)
- [A review of feature extraction and performance evaluation in epileptic seizure detection using EEG](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.00492/) (2019)
- [Multi-Scored Sleep Databases: How to Exploit the Multiple-Labels in Automated Sleep Scoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.01910/) (2022)
- [Automatic sleep monitoring using ear-EEG](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1701.04398/) (2017)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.