LiteEMG-FM: An Efficient and Deployable Foundation Model for Robust EMG Sensing
Authors: Tianhao Wu, Xu Wu, Amirmohammad Radmehr, Jiawei Yu, Yi Wu, Phuc Nguyen, Jian Liu
Organizations: University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States · Computer Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States · Wireless and Sensor Systems Lab (WSSL), University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, United States · Manning College of Information and Computer Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, United States
Electromyography (EMG) signals vary substantially across individuals, body regions, recording sessions, and sensing hardware, limiting the generalization of models for assistive devices and human-computer interaction. Existing time-series foundation models are also computationally expensive for real-time wearable deployment and often fail to capture EMG-specific time-frequency characteristics. We present LiteEMG-FM, an efficient hybrid CNN-Transformer foundation model for practical EMG sensing. Pretrained on 16 diverse upper- and lower-limb EMG datasets, LiteEMG-FM learns representations that generalize across users and datasets. For resource-constrained deployment, we implement a hierarchical wake-up architecture in which a lightweight, always-on 1D-CNN filters rest and non-target activity and activates LiteEMG-FM only for valid gestures. We evaluate full inference offloading, split inference, and full on-device processing, characterizing their trade-offs in latency, power consumption, and memory footprint. Across diverse evaluation settings, LiteEMG-FM outperforms state-of-the-art time-series foundation models and supervised baselines, particularly under zero-calibration cross-participant and data-scarce conditions. These results demonstrate that LiteEMG-FM is an effective, efficient, and deployable foundation model for EMG applications.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. LiteEMG-FM : the first EMG foundation model explicitly designed to balance strong generalization with wearable deployment constraints.
Figure 2. Overview of LiteEMG-FM . Raw EMG signals are processed into time–frequency spectrograms, encoded by a hybrid CNN–Transformer model, pretrained via masked reconstruction, and fine-tuned for hand and leg gesture classification.
Dataset
Body Part
SP (Hz)
Channels
Task
Hand/Arm Gesture Datasets
NinaPro DB1 ( Atzori et al., 2014 )
Forearm
100
10
Hand Gesture Classification
NinaPro DB2–4 / DB6–8 ( Atzori et al., 2014 ; Pizzolato et al., 2017 ; Krasoulis et al., 2017 ; Palermo et al., 2017 ; Krasoulis et al., 2017 ; Krasoulis et al., 2019 )
Hand
2000
10/12
Hand Gesture Classification
NinaPro DB5 ( Pizzolato et al., 2017 )
Forearm
200
10
Hand Gesture Classification
GRABMyo ( Jiang et al., 2022 )
Forearm
2048
32
Hand Gesture Classification
CapgMyo ( Dai et al., 2021a )
Hand
1000
128
Hand Gesture Classification
Table 1. Summary of EMG datasets used in LiteEMG-FM .
Figure 3. Overview of representative activities in the pretraining dataset. The left panel shows representative hand gestures (e.g., grasping, pointing, finger counting). The right panel shows locomotion activities (e.g., walking, marching, stair climbing). The datasets span 3 to 52 gesture classes, providing diverse muscle activation patterns for pretraining and downstream tasks.
Model
Year
Type
Backbone
Primary Tasks
# of Parameters
LiteEMG-FM (Ours)
2026
Foundation (Self-Supervised)
CNN + Transformer Encoder
Efficient EMG encoding for gesture, locomotion
8 M
EMGNet ( Chen et al., 2020 )
2020
Supervised
2D CNN
Hand gesture classification
2 M
LSTM-RNN ( Toro-Ossaba et al., 2022 )
2022
Supervised
LSTM-RNN
Hand gesture classification
1 M
WaveFormer ( Chen et al., 2025a )
2025
Supervised
Transformer
Hand gesture classification
7 M
MOMENT-Small ( Goswami et al., 2024 )
2024
Foundation (Self-Supervised)
Transformer
General time-series representation learning
40 M
MOMENT-Base ( Goswami et al., 2024 )
2024
Foundation (Self-Supervised)
Transformer
General time-series representation learning
125 M
Table 2. Comparison of baseline models and the proposed LiteEMG-FM .
Dataset
LiteEMG-FM
MOMENT-S
MOMENT-B
MOMENT-L
Brant
PatchTST
EMGNet
WaveFormer
LSTM-RNN
NinaPro DB2 (hand)
69.2 / 69.1
45.2 / 44.2
48.1 / 47.6
62.1 / 61.6
35.9 / 34.7
41.7 / 40.3
44.2 / 41.9
56.5 / 56.6
44.6 / 43.5
NinaPro DB7 (hand)
79.8 / 76.3
53.7 / 48.2
55.0 / 50.7
65.9 / 61.9
36.1 / 32.1
48.7 / 44.0
48.7 / 40.5
65.7 / 63.4
34.8 / 31.6
NinaPro DB8 (hand)
81.7 / 82.5
45.6 / 45.0
44.1 / 44.8
59.7 / 60.4
37.2 / 34.6
48.9 / 48.9
64.1 / 63.2
74.2 / 74.8
44.6 / 43.9
SIAT-LLMD (leg)
53.6 / 59.0
41.9 / 48.7
41.1 / 46.2
40.0 / 45.4
29.5 / 28.3
40.1 / 46.2
49.0 / 55.2
48.4 / 53.1
33.2 / 33.9
MyPredict1 (leg)
97.2 / 94.9
68.4 / 30.8
85.8 / 70.7
93.7 / 85.4
74.3 / 78.5
85.1 / 76.0
61.5 / 39.3
35.6 / 16.9
87.8 / 73.4
Table 3. Downstream performance across five datasets. LiteEMG-FM and other foundation models are trained with full fine-tuning; supervised models are trained from scratch. Values are percentages (Acc./F1).
Dataset
LiteEMG-FM
MOMENT-S
MOMENT-B
MOMENT-L
Brant
PatchTST
NinaPro DB2 (hand)
64.6 / 64.2
12.8 / 10.5
18.5 / 18.0
23.0 / 19.5
19.9 / 18.9
26.5 / 22.8
NinaPro DB7 (hand)
66.1 / 62.0
17.0 / 9.2
20.9 / 11.6
23.5 / 12.7
18.9 / 13.4
31.3 / 19.8
NinaPro DB8 (hand)
80.5 / 81.3
20.4 / 11.1
22.4 / 14.9
23.8 / 13.7
29.9 / 23.4
22.1 / 20.9
SIAT-LLMD (leg)
48.8 / 53.9
22.8 / 21.5
25.6 / 29.3
24.9 / 25.0
21.7 / 22.2
21.1 / 15.7
MyPredict1 (leg)
91.2 / 83.2
69.0 / 31.3
74.4 / 36.9
73.5 / 31.4
73.1 / 45.2
55.6 / 10.3
Table 4. Comparison between LiteEMG-FM (Linear Probe) and baseline foundation models across five downstream datasets. All values are reported in percentages (Acc./F1).
Dataset
Model
5%
10%
20%
40%
80%
100%
NinaPro DB2 (hand)
LiteEMG-FM
23.0
29.4
37.6
48.0
61.7
64.5
MOMENT-S
14.5
21.3
35.4
42.7
53.6
56.5
MOMENT-B
14.3
22.5
33.0
43.9
55.1
59.2
MOMENT-L
15.3
26.5
34.7
41.7
57.5
62.1
Brant
9.9
12.9
16.2
23.1
30.4
33.0
PatchTST
7.4
12.9
15.8
28.0
38.8
41.5
Table 5. Accuracy under label scarcity for LiteEMG-FM and baseline models on MyPredict (leg) and NinaPro DB2 (hand). Values are shown in percentages. LiteEMG-FM uses linear probing; baseline CNNs and Transformers are trained from scratch.
Model
Acc/F1
Model
Acc/F1
Model
Acc/F1
LiteEMG-FM
40.0/39.0
MOMENT-L
39.2/37.7
EMGNet
24.6/23.1
MOMENT-S
34.1/33.8
Brant
18.7/18.4
WaveFormer
17.2/13.5
MOMENT-B
36.2/35.5
PatchTST
32.5/32.0
LSTM-RNN
17.2/15.8
Table 6. Comparison of cross-subject classification accuracy.
Model Configuration
NinaPro DB2
NinaPro DB7
NinaPro DB8
SIAT-LLMD
MyPredict1
LiteEMG-FM (Full Model)
69.2
79.8
81.7
53.6
97.2
- Mask Ratio 0.3 (vs. 0.5)
64.5
74.6
81.1
52.6
95.4
- 4 Encoder Layers (vs. 2)
72.6
81.7
82.4
54.7
96.7
Table 7. Ablation study on pretraining design. Performance is Linear Probing Accuracy across five downstream datasets.
Figure 4. Experimental hardware implementation. The edge node consists of an ESP32-S3 microcontroller interfacing with raw EMG sensors. For Scenarios A and B, the device transmits data (raw signals or latent embeddings) via Bluetooth Low Energy to a companion Server for offloaded inference. This setup is used to empirically measure the latency, memory, and power for each deployment strategy.
Figure 5. Overview of the LiteEMG-FM hierarchical deployment architecture. To minimize energy waste, an always-on TinyCNN Gate runs locally on the edge device to filter rest intervals and motion noises. Upon detecting valid gestures, the system executes one of three inference paradigms: Scenario A Full Inference Offloading streams raw data to a server to minimize edge computing; Scenario B, Split Inference executes the convolutional tokenizer locally and transmits compressed latent embeddings to balance bandwidth and compute, and Scenario C Full On-Device Processing executes the entire foundation model locally to maximize data privacy and eliminate network dependence.
Specification
Value
Microcontroller
Espressif ESP32-S3-WROOM-1
CPU Core
Dual-core Xtensa® LX7 @ 240 MHz
Instruction Set
32-bit RISC with Vector Extensions
Memory (RAM)
512 KB Internal SRAM + 8 MB Octal PSRAM
Storage
8 MB SPI Flash
Operating System
FreeRTOS (via ESP-IDF v5.x)
Table 8. Hardware specifications of the wearable edge platform.
Deployment Strategy
Latency (ms)
Memory Footprint
Energy
Edge
Server
Total
Flash
Peak RAM
Active Power
A: Full Offloading
60
5
65
< 100 KB
≈ 240 KB
240 mW
B: Split Inference
5,928
1.7
5,930
1.5 MB
1,700 KB
387 mW
C: Full Edge
16,912
0.0
16,912
7.8 MB
2,000 KB
422 mW
Table 9. System performance trade-offs across deployment scenarios. Metrics are measured per 3-second inference window.
EMG-based gesture recognition decodes hand and arm movements from muscle electrical signals for prosthetic control, wearables, and human-machine interfaces.
Foundation models (FMs) are increasingly being developed for general time series and physiological signals, yet their transferability to downstream physiological tasks remains poorly understood. This question is particularly challenging for electromyography (EMG), where signal distributions vary substantially across users, sensing configurations, acquisition hardware, and downstream tasks. We introduce EMG-FM-Bench, a systematic benchmark for studying foundation-model transfer and adaptation on EMG. EMG-FM-Bench unifies 20 public datasets with over 1 million EMG segments and evaluates nine pretrained foundation models across four questions: how pretrained models perform when frozen or fully fine-tuned, how much pretraining helps compared with training the same model from scratch, how well models generalize to new users with limited labeled data, and how performance changes across different EMG tasks. Across the benchmark, linear probing provides useful information about pretrained representations, but full fine-tuning can substantially change downstream EMG performance. Comparing each pretrained model with the same model trained from scratch shows that the benefit of pretraining varies substantially across models and is not universal. Performance decreases when models are evaluated on new users, while five-shot adaptation improves macro-F1 in 70.2% of evaluated model-dataset combinations but recovers only part of the lost performance. Model performance is highly consistent between upper- and lower-limb classification and remains strongly correlated with continuous EMG-to-text decoding. Together, these results provide a systematic view of when pretrained time-series models transfer effectively to EMG and how their performance depends on fine-tuning, user variation, and downstream task.
Tianhao Wu, Jiawei Yu, Xiangdong Hu +8
University of Georgia · University of Oklahoma · University of Massachusetts Amherst
The miniaturisation of neural processing units (NPUs) and other low-power accelerators has enabled their integration into microcontroller-scale wearable hardware, supporting near-real-time, offline, and privacy-preserving inference. Yet physiological signal analysis has remained infeasible on such hardware; recent Transformer-based models show state-of-the-art performance but are prohibitively large for resource- and power-constrained hardware and incompatible with μNPUs due to their dynamic attention operations. We introduce PhysioLite, a lightweight, NPU-compatible model architecture and training framework for ECG/EMG signal analysis. Using learnable wavelet filter banks, CPU-offloaded positional encoding, and hardware-aware layer design, PhysioLite reaches performance comparable to state-of-the-art Transformer-based foundation models on ECG and EMG benchmarks, while being <10% of the size (∼370KB with 8-bit quantization). We also profile its component-wise latency and resource consumption on both the MAX78000 and HX6538 WE2 μNPUs, demonstrating its viability for signal analysis on constrained, battery-powered hardware. We release our model(s) and training framework at: https://github.com/j0shmillar/physiolite.
Imperial College London London, United Kingdom · Nokia Bell Labs London, United Kingdom · Brave Software & University of Cambridge London, United Kingdom
Objective: To enable continuous, long-term neuro-monitoring on wearable devices by overcoming the computational bottlenecks of Transformer-based Electroencephalography (EEG) foundation models and the quantization challenges inherent to State-Space Models (SSMs). Methods: We present FEMBA, a bidirectional Mamba architecture pre-trained on over 21,000 hours of EEG. We introduce a novel Physiologically-Aware pre-training objective, consisting of a reconstruction with low-pass filtering, to prioritize neural oscillations over high-frequency artifacts. To address the activation outliers common in SSMs, we employ Quantization-Aware Training (QAT) to compress the model to 2-bit weights. The framework is deployed on a parallel ultra-low-power RISC-V microcontroller (GAP9) using a custom double-buffered memory streaming scheme. Results: The proposed low-pass pre-training improves downstream AUROC on TUAB from 0.863 to 0.893 and AUPR from 0.862 to 0.898 compared to the best contrastive baseline. QAT successfully compresses weights with negligible performance loss, whereas standard post-training quantization degrades accuracy by approximately 30%. The embedded implementation achieves deterministic real-time inference (1.70~s per 5s window) and reduces the memory footprint by 74% (to ≈2MB), achieving competitive accuracy with up to \textbf{27×} fewer FLOPs than Transformer benchmarks. Conclusion: FEMBA demonstrates that Mamba-based foundation models can be effectively quantized and deployed on extreme-edge hardware without sacrificing the representation quality required for robust clinical analysis. Significance: This work establishes the first full-stack framework for deploying large-scale EEG foundation models on ultra-low-power wearables, facilitating continuous, SSM based monitoring for epilepsy and sleep disorders.
Anna Tegon, Nicholas Lehmann, Yawei Li +3
Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland · DEI, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy