English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The SARS-COVID-19 pandemic restricted in-lab research activities especially in older individuals who are considered at-risk for severe disease. To continue longitudinal sleep research in this population we sought to test the feasibility of remotely conducting at-home sleep and memory research and to compare two ambulatory polysomnography (PSG) devices for ongoing home sleep testing. Methods 20 older (age=65.6±5.5 years) cognitively normal adults (65% female) who had previously undergone 2 nights in-lab sleep, memory and vigilance testing were delivered equipment for 2 nights at-home, technician-guided remote PSG set-up (1 night each for Somté [EEG: Fp1-M2, Cz-M1] and Sleep Profiler (SP) [EEG: Fp1-Fp2] devices- randomized presentation), and 6 timed trials on a 3D spatial maze navigation memory plus morning psychomotor vigilance testing (PVT). The night-to-night differences for devices and in-lab versus at-home testing environments were compared for sleep macro and EEG microarchitecture using paired Wilcoxon rank sum and t-tests where appropriate. First-night maze completion time (CT) and PVT reaction time and lapses were also compared. Results 19 people completed 2 nights at-home PSG, 18 completed PVT and 9 completed all 6 maze trials. Quality frontal EEG signals were obtained for 16 SP and 11 Somté recordings. There was no significant night to night differences (night 1–night 2) between in-lab and at-home environments for total sleep time (mean difference: in-lab= -0.27 vs at-home = 0.35 hours), wake after sleep onset (WASO) (median difference: in-lab= 3.0 vs at-home = 0.7 %WASO), or slow wave sleep (SWS) (mean difference: in-lab= -0.70 vs at-home = 2.3 %SWS). Relative frontal slow wave activity and spindle density were not significantly different between devices or environments. K-complex density (SP= 1.0 vs Somté =2.7/minNREM2, p=0.004) was significantly reduced with the SP device compared to Somté devices. There were no significant differences for maze CT and PVT measures between in-lab and at-home environments. Conclusion The night-to-night differences in sleep macroarchitecture do not appear to be influenced by environment or device however measures of EEG microstructure such as K-complexes, which are amplitude-dependent, may be underestimated with the Sleep Profiler device due to smaller EEG amplitude from a derivation with short inter-electrode distances. Support (if any) NIH (R01AG056031, R01AG056531, K24)

703 From in-lab to at-home: Measuring sleep and memory in the time of SARS-COVID-19