↓ Skip to main content

Challenges and Emerging Technologies within the Field of Pediatric Actigraphy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Challenges and Emerging Technologies within the Field of Pediatric Actigraphy
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00099
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Galland, Kim Meredith-Jones, Philip Terrill, Rachael Taylor

Abstract

Actigraphy as an objective measure of sleep and wakefulness in infants and children has gained popularity over the last 20 years. However, the field lacks published guidelines for sleep-wake identification within pediatric age groups. The scoring rules vary greatly and although sensitivity (sleep agreement with polysomnography) is usually high, a significant limitation remains in relation to specificity (wake agreement). Furthermore, accurate algorithm output and sleep-wake summaries usually require prior entry from daily logs of sleep-wake periods and artifact-related information (e.g., non-wear time), involving significant parent co-operation. Scoring criteria for daytime naps remains an unexplored area. Many of the problems facing accuracy of measurement are inherent within the field of actigraphy itself, particularly where sleep periods containing significant movements are erroneously classified as wake, and within quiet wakefulness when no movements are detected, erroneously classified as sleep. We discuss the challenges of actigraphy for pediatric sleep, briefly describe the technical basis and consider a number of technological approaches that may facilitate improved classification of errors in sleep-wake discrimination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 89 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 31 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 9%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Sports and Recreations 5 5%
Other 21 23%
Unknown 32 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2014.
All research outputs
#18,376,056
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#6,811
of 9,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,218
of 235,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#50
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 235,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.