Computational study demonstrates accurate continuous sEMG decoding using low-power multi-timescale networks, highlighting viable real-time edge processing for prosthetics.
Surface electromyography (sEMG) offers a non-invasive window into neuromuscular activity and is increasingly used as a reliable control signal for prosthetics, rehabilitation devices, and wearable health monitoring.However, decoding sEMG for such applications is computationally expensive, which remains a major barrier to deployment on embedded and wearable systems.To overcome this limitation, we introduce novel multi-timescale architectures for large-scale, continuous sEMG decoding.We first show that structured linear state-space models (SSMs), originally developed for long-sequence modeling, provide an efficient baseline for sEMG decoding on the emg2qwerty benchmark.These surpass state-of-the-art, transformer-based performance while requiring up to three orders of magnitude fewer operations.Building on this result, we introduce a hybrid multi-timescale architecture for the same large-scale sEMG decoding task, integrating linear SSMs, convolutional and event-driven networks within a structured two-stage framework.Our results show that the proposed homogeneous SSMs are optimal at high computational budgets (< 100 M MACs/s), whereas the introduced two-stage models substantially improve accuracy–efficiency scaling in the computationally constrained regimes relevant for edge deployment.In this regime, our two-stage models match or exceed prior state-of-the-art accuracy with up to 5000× lower computational cost.Finally, to demonstrate real-time operation in both distributed and end-to-end edge implementations, we deploy our best models on low-power STM32 microcontrollers, validating analytical complexity estimates against measured latencies.Overall, these results demonstrate that task-aligned, computationally efficient architectures enable real-time sEMG decoding on edge devices for naturalistic, dexterous motor control, paving the way towards effective prosthetics and rehabilitation devices, and wearable assistive and augmentative technologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ortone et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: