Table 5.

Resulting confusion matrices of (A) condition Fpz+EOG test-retest (missing participant number 5, since not included in Fpz+EOG 1^st Rating), (B) condition Fpz+EOG vs. cEEGrid and (C) condition Fpz+EOG vs. cEEGrid+EOG.

(A) Fpz+EOG test-retest		Art	W	N1	N2	N3	REM
	Art	63	19	1	1	0	5
	W	4	927	96	18	2	8
	N1	0	58	370	260	0	53
	N2	0	117	168	2,870	226	23
	N3	1	7	2	39	1,495	0
	REM	0	102	91	104	1	1,562
(B) Fpz+EOG vs. cEEGrid		Art	W	N1	N2	N3	REM
	Art	100	8	2	19	1	2
	W	63	769	47	135	10	98
	N1	27	86	257	306	3	60
	N2	135	71	133	2,958	244	82
	N3	2	2	1	198	1,753	1
	REM	83	23	70	399	2	1,191
(C) Fpz+EOG vs cEEGrid+EOG		Art	W	N1	N2	N3	REM
	Art	70	13	21	14	0	14
	W	84	714	85	133	3	103
	N1	29	51	300	295	1	63
	N2	63	11	96	3,288	121	44
	N3	6	3	1	241	1,705	1
	REM	35	14	75	126	0	1,518

Each count refers to the annotation of a single 30 second segment. The respective hypnograms of all participants were concatenated to create the confusion matrices. Only the first 5 h and 20 min of rating results of participant number 1 entered the analyses of (B, C), since several cEEGrid electrodes separated from the skin during the second half of the night.