Fig 1.
Introduction to the paper process.
Fig 2.
Subjective evaluation of SEMG signal before and after denoising.
(A) SEMG signal with noise; (B) SEMG signal after denoising.
Table 1.
Objective evaluation of surface EMG signal before and after denoising.
Table 2.
Objective evaluation of muscle fatigue recognition model.
Fig 3.
Comparison of subjects’ heart rate and subjective score after exercise.
(A) Comparison of heart rate after exercise; (B) Comparison of subjective scores after exercise. Compared with those in Ctrl group, *P<0.05.
Fig 4.
Comparison of HB, RBC, and MCV of subjects after exercise.
(A) Comparison of HB of subjects; (B) Comparison of RBC in subjects’ blood; (C) Comparison of subjects’ MVC. Compared with Ctrl group, *P<0.05.
Fig 5.
Comparison of BLA, MDA, and CPK levels after exercise.
(A) Comparison of BLA levels of subjects; (B) Comparison of MDA levels in subjects’ blood; (C) Comparison of CPK levels in subjects’ blood. Compared with Ctrl group, *P<0.05.
Fig 6.
Comparison of electromyographic parameters at each time point after exercise.
(A) Changes in the time domain feature RMS; (B) IEMG changes in time domain features of subjects’ SEMG signals; (C) Changes of MPF in the frequency domain. Compared to Ctrl group, *P<0.05.
Table 3.
Comparison of mean amplitudes of ultrasonic biological image response signals at different time points after subject exercise.
Fig 7.
Comparison of USBI image parameters of muscles after exercise.
(A) Comparison of surface muscle thickness of subjects; (B) Comparison of deep muscle thickness of subjects; (C) Comparison of total muscle thickness of subjects. Compared with Ctrl group, *P<0.05.
Table 4.
Comparison of texture features of USBI images of muscles after exercise.