↓ Skip to main content

Automatic sleep spindle detection: benchmarking with fine temporal resolution using open science tools

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Automatic sleep spindle detection: benchmarking with fine temporal resolution using open science tools
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00353
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian O'Reilly, Tore Nielsen

Abstract

Sleep spindle properties index cognitive faculties such as memory consolidation and diseases such as major depression. For this reason, scoring sleep spindle properties in polysomnographic recordings has become an important activity in both research and clinical settings. The tediousness of this manual task has motivated efforts for its automation. Although some progress has been made, increasing the temporal accuracy of spindle scoring and improving the performance assessment methodology are two aspects needing more attention. In this paper, four open-access automated spindle detectors with fine temporal resolution are proposed and tested against expert scoring of two proprietary and two open-access databases. Results highlight several findings: (1) that expert scoring and polysomnographic databases are important confounders when comparing the performance of spindle detectors tested using different databases or scorings; (2) because spindles are sparse events, specificity estimates are potentially misleading for assessing automated detector performance; (3) reporting the performance of spindle detectors exclusively with sensitivity and specificity estimates, as is often seen in the literature, is insufficient; including sensitivity, precision and a more comprehensive statistic such as Matthew's correlation coefficient, F1-score, or Cohen's κ is necessary for adequate evaluation; (4) reporting statistics for some reasonable range of decision thresholds provides a much more complete and useful benchmarking; (5) performance differences between tested automated detectors were found to be similar to those between available expert scorings; (6) much more development is needed to effectively compare the performance of spindle detectors developed by different research teams. Finally, this work clarifies a long-standing but only seldomly posed question regarding whether expert scoring truly is a reliable gold standard for sleep spindle assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 86 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 19%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 13%
Neuroscience 8 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 9%
Engineering 8 9%
Computer Science 7 8%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 27 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,812,531
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,909
of 7,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,118
of 264,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#125
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 264,075 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.