Using EMG Amplitude and Frequency to Calculate a Multimuscle Fatigue Score and Evaluate Global Shoulder Fatigue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors developed a function to quantify fatigue in multiple shoulder muscles by generating a single score using relative changes in EMG amplitude and frequency over time. BACKGROUND: Evaluating both frequency and amplitude components of the electromyographic signal provides a more complete evaluation of muscle fatigue than either variable alone; however, little effort has been made to combine time and frequency domains for the evaluation of myoelectric fatigue. METHOD: Surface EMG was measured from 14 shoulder muscles while participants performed simulated, repetitive work tasks until exhaustion. Each 60-s work cycle consisted of four tasks (dynamic push, dynamic pull, static drill, static force target matching task) scaled to participants' anthropometrics and strength. The function was generated to calculate a multimuscle fatigue score (MMFS) based on changes in EMG frequency, amplitude, and the number of muscles showing signs of myoelectric fatigue (increase in EMG amplitude; decrease in EMG frequency). RESULTS: The function was evaluated through changes in MMFS over time: first (31.8 ± 14.6), middle (47.6 ± 25.3), last (58.6 ± 35.5) reference exertions ( p < .05). The evaluation of the relationships between MMFS and changes in strength ( r = -0.510) and MMFS and perceived fatigue (RPF) ( r = 0.298) showed significant relationships over time ( p < .05). MMFS scores increased over time ( p < .05) with significant relationships between MMFS and strength changes and RPF ( p < .05). CONCLUSION AND APPLICATION: The MMFS allows for comparisons between workplace tasks, which can aid in workplace design to mitigate the development of fatigue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".