Comparison of Two At-Home Sleep Monitoring Technologies

Background: Despite the importance of regular sleep patterns being well-known throughout society, a growing number of people claim to be sleep-deprived. There is a need to identify a simple and unobtrusive method in which people can accurately track their sleep to monitor changes and track how their sleep affects their daytime function. Methods: Here, we compared two at-home sleep monitors, the Zeo EEG headband system and the OURA physiological ring, in twenty-seven healthy young adults to determine their relative accuracy in classifying the various sleep stages. The two devices track sleep differently. The ring relies on hand movements and hemodynamic and respiratory changes in the body, while the headband system analyzes forehead EEG brain activities. Subjects wore both devices to sleep for 3-5 nights. Total sleep time, latency to sleep, time in wake, percentage and time in REM, percentage and time in light sleep, and percentage and time in deep sleep were recorded. The means and mean standard deviations of the two systems\u27 sleep variables were assessed. Results: Compared to the EEG headband, the ring overestimated the awakening episodes\u27 duration and underestimated the sleep latency. The ring was also more variable in capturing the total awakening episodes and deep sleep duration. Notably, the EEG headband gave information about the number of awakenings, which the ring does not report. Conclusion: Sleep quality, or the lack thereof, has relevant applications in physical rehabilitation. The results of the study point to the need to continue developing reliable and simple methods to monitor night sleep quality. While this study looked at individuals who do not have sleep dysfunction, it is possible that the discrepancies between the two sleep monitoring systems would be wider among people with sleep disorders

Effects of a Trunk Harness on Lumbopelvic Stability and Muscle Activity during Prone Hip Extension Exercise

Background: Therapeutic exercise is essential in patients with low back pain and lumbopelvic instability. Intra-abdominal pressure is necessary for ideal dynamic stabilization patterns. However, accurate performance of such exercises is a challenge. A trunk harness can help stabilize and alter muscular patterns. This study aimed to examine the effects of using a trunk harness on lumbopelvic stability and muscle activity during prone hip extension in healthy individuals and patients with low back pain. Methods: Sixteen patients with low back pain and 15 healthy individuals performed prone hip extension under control, Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization(DNS)-maneuver, and DNS-maneuver + harness conditions. Lumbopelvic kinematic data, muscle onset time of the bilateral erector spinae, semitendinosus, gluteus maximus, low back pain severity, and difficulty performing prone hip extension were evaluated. Repeated-measures two-way analysis of variance was performed for each measurement item. The significant level was set at 5%. Results: The lumbar lordosis angle was significantly lower in the DNS-maneuver and DNS-maneuver + harness conditions. The anterior pelvic tilt angle was significantly lower, and muscle onset of the gluteus maximus and contralateral erector spinae occurred earlier in the DNS-maneuver + harness condition. The difficulty of performing prone hip extension was significantly lower in the DNS-maneuver and DNS-maneuver + harness conditions and was considerably lower in the DNS-maneuver + harness condition than in the DNS-maneuver condition. Conclusion: Wearing a trunk harness could help stabilize the lumbopelvic region and change muscle activity patterns

Delta Theta Sigma

Donated by Ruth McMartinhttps://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/deltathetasigma/1004/thumbnail.jp

Delta Theta Sigma

Bottom Left to Right: Nancy Garrett, Shorty (Connie) Helton, Kim Partin, Jerri Rosenbaum Geyer, Jana Bass, Debbie Hickman, Yolando Counts, Middle Left to Right: Dawn Suerdick, Diana Beach, Diana O. Quinn, Wendy Flynn, Glenda Horton, Kelly Barker, Rose Anna Eddo, Missy Watson, Regina Sawyers, Back Row Left to Right: Terri Kyle, Cathy Hart, Lesia (Chad) Chadwell, Ronee Rhea, Mary Sue Reel, Barbara Wallace, Donna Conner, Sanchen (Shasta) Owens.https://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/deltathetasigma/1000/thumbnail.jp

Delta Theta Sigma

Donated by Ruth McMartinhttps://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/deltathetasigma/1002/thumbnail.jp

Alpha Lambda Zeta & Delta Theta Sigma Reunion

https://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/alphalambdazeta/1000/thumbnail.jp

Alpha Lambda Zeta

https://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/alphalambdazeta/1003/thumbnail.jp

Delta Theta Sigma

Donated by Ruth McMartinhttps://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/deltathetasigma/1006/thumbnail.jp

Delta Theta Sigma

Donated by Ruth McMartinhttps://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/deltathetasigma/1001/thumbnail.jp

Alpha Lambda Zeta

https://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/alphalambdazeta/1002/thumbnail.jp