Abstract
Wearable EEG devices enable home sleep monitoring but require systematic spectral validation before their physiological outputs can serve as proxies for polysomnographic features. This study provides comprehensive spectral validation of the Zmax EEG headband against concurrent PSG using the Wearanize+ dataset. Seventy-one participants with adequate signal quality underwent simultaneous home PSG and Zmax recording. Bandpower correspondence, calibration robustness, within-subject reliability, lateralisation, and spindle detection were evaluated across all sleep stages. Zmax systematically underestimates bandpower across all frequency bands (bias -0.41 to -0.74 log units), attributable to the active Fpz reference electrode. A per-subject N2-referenced calibration eliminates this bias; N2 calibration outperformed N3 and REM alternatives (mean post-calibration r=0.601 vs 0.479 and 0.489). Post-calibration spectral correspondence was strong for alpha (N3: r=0.806) and sigma (N3: r=0.752). Within-subject reliability was excellent (split-half r>0.99). Demographic factors explained less than 4% of offset variance. Lateralisation analysis was underpowered (36-39% power; N=194 required for 80% power). Spindle under-detection was traced to YASA's relative sigma power pre-filter; lowering this threshold recovered PSG-equivalent counts with near-zero bias. These findings establish a validated calibration framework and evidence-based feature selection recommendations for Zmax-based sleep biomarker research.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Dataset was acquired with a DUA from Radboud University who established the regulations and anonymity. Secondary analysis of this anonymised publicly available dataset under a signed Data Use Agreement did not require additional ethical approval from the authors' institutional review board.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data are available via a DUA: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12888818/
