We present FatigueFormer, a semi-end-to-end framework that deliberately combines saliency-guided feature separation with deep temporal modeling to learn interpretable and generalizable muscle fatigue dynamics from surface electromyography (sEMG). Unlike prior approaches that struggle to maintain robustness across varying Maximum Voluntary Contraction (MVC) levels due to signal variability and low SNR, FatigueFormer employs parallel Transformer-based sequence encoders to separately capture static and temporal feature dynamics, fusing their complementary representations to improve performance stability across low- and high-MVC conditions. Evaluated on a self-collected dataset spanning 30 participants across four MVC levels (20-80%), it achieves state-of-the-art accuracy and strong generalization under mild-fatigue conditions. Beyond performance, FatigueFormer enables attention-based visualization of fatigue dynamics, revealing how feature groups and time windows contribute differently across varying MVC levels, offering interpretable insight into fatigue progression.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of sEMG characteristics and fatigue dynamics. (a) physiological sEMG and noise; (b) raw sEMG across MVC levels; (c) fatigue-sensitive features (e.g., MF, DET) decreasing with fatigue.
Method
Task
Input Type
Participants
Use Transformer
MVC-levels
(Zabihi et al., 2023) [ 63 ]
Hand gesture
Raw sEMG
40
✓
(Dang et al, 2023) [ 13 ]
Fatigue Detection
Raw sEMG
20
(Rani et al, 2024) [ 51 ]
Hand gesture
Feature Map
8 + Not Reported + 6
(Putro et al., 2024) [ 50 ]
Finger joint est.
Feature Map
5
✓
(Eddy et al, 2024) [ 17 ]
Hand gesture
Raw sEMG
612
(Mehlman et al, 2025) [ 43 ]
Typing
Raw sEMG
108
✓
Table 1: Representative deep learning methods for sEMG-based tasks.
Figure 2: Overview of the proposed semi–end-to-end framework. Left: the sEMG feature extraction engine produces increasing- and decreasing-type descriptors, which are fed into the temporal and static encoders in parallel. Right: both encoders adopt a Transformer-based sequence module with similar structure but independent parameters. Their fused representations are finally used for fatigue recognition.
Figure 3: The feature tokenizer maps an n -dimensional statistical feature vector into an (n+1)×D embedding sequence.
MVC Level
Relaxed
Exerted
Fatigued
Total
20%
6313
9867
16417
32597
40%
1475
3331
4318
9124
60%
775
1408
1955
4138
80%
402
813
1603
2818
Table 2: Sample distribution across fatigue levels under different MVC conditions in static contraction experiments.
MVC (%)
Method
Precision
Recall
F1-score
20
SVM
80.94
81.13
80.96
CNN-SVM
77.79
77.98
77.64
CLT
85.87
85.60
85.71
AutoInt
85.86
85.47
85.59
Ours
97.85±0.03
97.85±0.03
97.85±0.03
40
SVM
83.64
83.68
83.61
Table 3: Performance comparison under different MVC levels. Each cell reports mean precision, recall, and F1-score (%). “Ours” additionally reports standard deviation across five runs. Best results are highlighted in bold .
Model Variant
MVC Level (%)
20
40
60
80
w/o Temporal Encoder
90.87
94.45
96.03
97.01
w/o Static Encoder
97.35
97.45
94.44
96.67
w/o Cross Attention
96.69
97.44
97.26
97.78
w/o Residual Path (MLP)
97.32
97.45
96.76
97.78
w/o Multi-scale Loss
97.75
97.56
97.26
95.92
Table 4: Ablation study of key components across different MVC levels. Each value reports the average F1-score (%) over five runs. Removing specific modules or supervision terms leads to performance degradation under different contraction levels, highlighting their complementary effects.
Model
Precision (%)
Recall (%)
F1-score (%)
AutoInt
53.32
52.69
52.01
CLT
56.24
53.58
53.47
Ours
61.15
61.08
60.41
Table 5: Cross-MVC + L5SO generalization performance. Each value reports the mean over all folds. Our semi end-to-end framework achieves the best generalization across unseen subjects.
Figure 4: Temporal attention visualization across and within MVC levels. (a) Cross-MVC heatmap illustrates the evolution of attention intensity across time windows (W1–W5) under different contraction levels (20–80% MVC). (b–c) Representative attention distributions at low (20%) and high (80%) MVC show how the model reallocates its temporal focus across fatigue states ( relaxed , exerted , fatigued ).
Figure 5: Static attention maps across MVC levels. (a) Self-attention maps show feature-group dependencies between increasing (INC) and decreasing (DEC) signals across four MVC levels (20%, 40%, 60%, 80%). (b) Cross-attention maps illustrate inter-group interactions ( DEC → INC and INC → DEC ) under the same MVC ordering.
Figure 6: Illustration of the experimental setup during sEMG data acquisition. The photo shows the participant’s forearm and the attached load used to control contraction intensity. For privacy protection, no identifiable information is visible, and the surface electrodes placed on the upper arm are not shown in this illustrative view. All photos were taken with informed consent.
RPE Score
Perceived Sensation
Fatigue State
6–7
Very, very light / Effortless
Relaxed
8–10
Very light / Easy
Relaxed
11
Fairly light
Exerted
12–14
Somewhat hard
Exerted
15
Hard
Exerted
16–18
Very hard
Fatigued
Table 6: RPE score–to–fatigue state mapping used in the experiment.
Category
Increasing Features
Decreasing Features
Time-domain features
AEMG, iEMG, RMS, MAV, MCV, DASDV
ZC, SSC, WA
Frequency-domain features
SMR, FSM2, TP
MPF, MF, MDF, IMPF, IMF, BSE
Time–frequency features
ERHL, IMNF, IMFB
Wavelet-based features
WIRM1551, WIRM1522, WIRE51, WIRW51, WEE
Nonlinear features
DET, ACC
AE, SE, LZC, FD, BE, WENT
Table 7: Categories of extracted sEMG features and their trend-based grouping (increasing vs. decreasing) based on statistical significance analysis.
Figure 7: Temporal evolution of eight representative sEMG features across fatigue progression. Solid curves show subject-averaged trajectories, and dashed lines denote linear regression fits. Features with positive slopes are categorized as increasing-type , whereas those with negative slopes are labeled decreasing-type . These empirical patterns validate the trend-based feature grouping used in the main paper.
Platform
Model
Arch.
Cores (L/P)
Freq.
L3
Best Proc/Time (s)
Speedup
Server
Xeon 8470Q
x86_64
208/104
2.0–3.8
97.5
24 / 23.68
43.88 ×
Server
Xeon 6430
x86_64
128/64
2.1–3.5
60
20 / 61.60
16.87 ×
Desktop
i7-11800H
x86_64
16/8
2.3–4.6
24
16 / 116.3
8.93 ×
Desktop
Apple M1
ARM64
8/8
3.2
12
8 / 85.41
12.16 ×
Table 8: Runtime performance of the Python-based feature extraction engine.
Model Variant
MVC Level (%)
Total parameters
20
40
60
80
Embedding dim = 128
96.30
97.95
98.13
96.50
2,825,353
Embedding dim = 512
98.26
98.12
99.01
97.39
44,331,529
Temporal window = 3
94.50
96.25
96.70
96.40
11,155,209
Temporal window = 7
98.72
98.11
98.48
98.12
11,156,233
Full model (D = 256, T = 5)
97.85
97.98
98.66
98.60
11,155,721
Table 9: Ablation results on embedding dimension D and temporal window length T . We report F1-scores (%) across MVC levels and total parameter counts, illustrating the trade-off between model capacity and efficiency.
Model
Class
MVC Level (%)
20
40
60
80
CLT
Relaxed
90.00
89.00
84.00
78.00
Exerted
77.00
82.00
82.00
66.00
Fatigued
89.00
90.00
92.00
86.00
AutoInt
Relaxed
87.44
87.91
95.52
81.25
Exerted
78.88
86.87
92.31
86.75
Table 10: Per-class F1-score (%) across MVC levels for three methods.
F. Kiki, P. P. Niaz, A. Madani, and C. Basdogan (corresponding author) are with the Robotics and Mechatronics Laboratory (RML) and the KUIS AI Center, Koc University, Sariyer, Istanbul 34450, Turkey.