I have Actiwatch 2 and Actiwatch Specrum Pro watches to be worn by 6-17 year olds for a study. I have mixed messages from literature in relation to which wrist the watch should be worn.
It should be worn in the non-dominant wrist. Normally dominant hand is used for writing, eating and many other day-to-day activities those may likely to exaggerate activities of the subject.
Agree with Atanu Pati.
Also the very most of the scientific actigraphy literature used this standard (e.g. non-dominant wrist).
Agree with Atanu. This was the protocol used for the feasibility respiratory muscle training study done with healthy snorers in my MA Res Sc.
I thought that wearing it on the dominant wrist would be better able to distinguish quiet sitting, like in front of TV, from sleeping. But when I tried to wear it on the dominant wrist I found it very annoying. So that was the end of that!
I do agree with Atanu Pati. In most of the scientific literature on actigraphy, it is recommended to wear the actigraphy watches on non-dominant hand.
Left wrist for right handed and right wrist for left handed as it affect the working hand.
I agree with Dr. Mageet the activity level of the hand in question can affect the results.
It might be correct to use the non-dominant arm, but two references did not find any important differences:
Littner M, Hirshkowitz M, Kramer M, Kapen S, Anderson WM, et al. (2003) Practice parameters for using polysomnography to evaluate insomnia: an update. Sleep 26: 754–760.
Van Hilten JJ, Middelkoop HA, Kuiper SI, Kramer CG, Roos RA (1993) Where to record motor activity: an evaluation of commonly used sites of placement for activity monitors. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 89: 359–362. doi: 10.1016/0168-5597(93)90076-2
I agree with Gunnar Morken. In the tests I have performed I found no differences between dominant and non-dominant arm.
However, I would recommend following the recommandations of AASM (see : Ancoli-Israel S. 2003 SLEEP, the section on actigraph placement).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction