Comparing the Kinesiological

Arm-Length Reflex Test

with a Myotonometric Measurement
of Muscle Stiffness
Raimund Engel, MSc., D.O., a, b, * Mag. Dr. Astrid Grant Hay a
a Vienna School of Osteopathy, Vienna, Austria
b International Academy of Physioenergetics, Vienna, Austria
*Corresponding author: raimund.engel@wso.at

Keywords:
arm-length reflex test, kinesiology, muscle stiffness, myotonometry, Physioenergetics

Summary The arm length-reflex (AR) test is a kinesiological test used as a diagnostic tool by medical
doctors and other health practitioners. Based on the direct relation between muscle stiffness and
length, this study aimed to compare the subjective AR test results with changes in the objective
measurement of muscle stiffness. 20 subjects were found to have a negative AR test at the baseline
(M1) and a positive AR test after a test stimulus with a strong magnet on a dysfunctional body zone
(M2). During M1 and M2 the stiffness of the subjects’ pectoralis major, latissimus dorsi and biceps
brachii muscles was measured with a MyotonPro device. The between-sides difference of the
baseline measurement (M1) and the experimental measurement (M2) were compared using the
Wilcoxon signed-rank test. It showed a significant difference (p=0,028), so the hypothesis could be
confirmed, suggesting that there is an objectively measurable effect.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been submitted for publication. As a service to
our colleagues we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content..

Version 1, 8.3.2016 1 / 10
 a supplement to classical kinesiological muscle
INTRODUCTION testing (Klinghardt, 2004; Tschernitschek and
Fink, 2005).
The Arm Length-Reflex (AR) Test
Developed by Belgian osteopath Raphael Van The basic principle of all forms of Kinesiology is
Assche in the early 1980s (Rossaint, 1987, p. 95; to observe changes in muscle function as the
Van Assche, 1996, p. 29), the arm length-reflex organism’s response to a specific stimulus
(AR) test is a kinesiological test, which is used as (mechanical, thermic, chemical or
a diagnostic tool by medical doctors, dentists psychological). While in Applied Kinesiology (AK)
and other health practitioners. this is mainly done by manual muscle testing,
measuring the force of specific muscles
Historically, several authors in the field of (Walther, 1981), therapists in Physioenergetics
manual therapies have described various tests make predominantly use of the AR test.
of their patients’ arm length as a diagnostic
means. The osteopath Thomas Northup used a Typically the AR test is performed with the
test of the length of upper and lower subject in supine position and the arms in 180°
extremities in conjunction with palpation of the anteversion/elevation, so that the arms are
deltoid and gastrocnemius muscles to detect rested on the treatment table beside and above
the most important somatic dysfunctions in his the head. The tester takes each of the subject’s
patients’ spine (Northup, 1983, p. 129). Alan wrists in one of his hands and applies equal
Beardall, chiropractor and founder of Clinical traction in a cranial direction on both arms,
Kinesiology, described the ‘arm check’ as a test observing if there is a difference in length (see
of the endocrine system and autonomic Figure 1).
nervous system (Beardall, 1986, p. 1/3) while in
Sacro-occipital technique a difference in arm
length is supposed to indicate a unilateral
contraction of the M. psoas (Blum, 2006). What
these earlier arm length tests have in common,
is that firstly they all use a rather high amount
of force, stretching the respective myofascial
chains to the end of their range, and secondly
that each of them offers a very specific
interpretation of a positive test. In contrast, Van
Assche developed the AR test as a general-
purpose tool for stimulus-response testing in
various domains of health, using weak to
medium traction to detect myofascial reflex
reactions (Lechner, 1997, pp. 93–100; Rossaint,
2005, pp. 203–206; Van Assche, 1996, pp. 29–
33)
The AR test was first taught in Spain, Germany
and Austria, but more recently it’s use has
spread to other European countries, South
America, Russia and Japan, where it is taught by
Raphael Van Assche, and colleagues including
the first author (Engel and Seitschek, 2007).
From the beginning on it has formed the core
element of a kinesiological method called
Physioenergetics (also Holistic Kinesiology), but
more and more it is also taught in the context of
other kinesiological systems, where it is used as Figure 1: Negative AR - test

Version 1, 8.3.2016 2 / 10
In a pre-test without any stimulus the arm
length is typically more or less equal, if the
subject does not have any pathological
restrictions in shoulder or elbow joints. After
the pre-test various stimuli are applied, e.g.
touching a painful zone of the subject’s body. If
the AR test after the stimulus still shows the
same length on both sides, it is regarded as a
negative test. If the stimulus is individually
relevant for the patient, it seems to cause
changes in the relation between muscle groups
on the left and right side of the body, resulting
in a ‘shorter arm’ on one side during the AR test
(Van Assche, 1996, pp. 29–33). To be regarded
as a positive test result, the difference in arm
length has to be equal to or bigger than the
length of the thumb’s distal phalanx, only then
the respective stimulus is regarded as
something worth of further investigation or
treatment (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Positive AR-test after magnet
challenge
Version 1, 8.3.2016
If the stimulus does not cause the positive
result described above, it will be assumed that
the cause for the pain lies in another part of the
body. This type of stimulus-response-testing
was developed in AK where the stimulus is
called ‘challenge’. In AK a positive challenge is
defined as a stimulus that is mediated by local
receptors and the central nervous system
(Garten, 2004, p. 27) and causes a change in the
patient’s reaction during a manual muscle test
(Rosner and Cuthbert, 2012).
In general, the AR is regarded as a binary
(yes/no) answer to a wide variety of challenges,
which is not caused by one single muscle, but
rather by whole groups of muscles on both
sides of the body, including muscles of the arm
as well as muscles of the trunk.
Physioenergetics and the AR test have been
described in several books (Lechner, 1997;
Lechner and Krieger, 2002; Mastalier, 1996;
Muelas, 2014; Roca, 2002; Rossaint, 2001, 2005,
1987; Williams, 2007), but despite its long and
widespread use in clinical practice to date no
studies have been published that tried to
compare the results of the AR test with those of
an objective measurement device.
Muscle length and stiffness
In mechanics stiffness refers to a body resisting
an applied change in length. The relations are
defined as F = k*d where F is the applied force,
d the amount of elongation and k the stiffness
of the body or tissue (Özkaya et al., 2012, pp.
175–176). In mechanics (e.g. in a spring) k is
typically regarded as a constant, in living tissue
k is another variable: the stiffness of a muscle
increases in a linear fashion with the muscle’s
force output (Bizzini and Mannion, 2003). In a
typical AR-test the force (F) is kept constant and
the elongation is variable, so the formula above
could be converted to d=F/k. Based on these
relations it can be assumed that the difference
in arm-length as observed during the AR test is
caused by changes in the balance of muscle-
stiffness between the two sides of the body.
Higher stiffness in the muscles on one side
would result in a shorter arm on the same side,
so muscle stiffness seems to be a suitable point
of comparison with a positive or negative
outcome of the AR test.
3 / 10
Preliminary experiments showed that it was
difficult to achieve a test force that is precisely
balanced between the two arms. This is why
this study used a design where the length was
kept equal, so comparable measurements of
the muscle stiffness between the two body
sides could be obtained.
Aims and Hypothesis
The aim of this study was to clarify, if the
subjective observation made by a tester could
be confirmed with an objective measurement
method by measuring the muscle stiffness of M.
biceps brachii caput breve (BB), M. latissimus
dorsi (LD) and M. pectoralis major (PM). These
three muscles were chosen because their
contraction during a positive AR test had been
reported by practitioners, and because they
were easily accessible for the measurement in
the test position.
The hypothesis was that the difference in
muscle stiffness between the left and right side
of the body would change significantly after a
positive challenge (defined by a positive AR
test), compared to the baseline measurement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
24 healthy subjects were recruited among
students and lecturers of Physioenergetics.
Exclusion criteria were pain or restricted range
of motion in shoulder or elbow joints, a positive
AR test already at the pre-test, a body mass
index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2 (Gapeyeva and Vain,
2008, p. 6) and also pacemakers as a magnet
placed close to the subject might impair the
pacemaker’s functioning (Beyerbach and
Rottman, 2014). All participants were informed
about the procedure and risks and signed a
consent form before participating. The study
received local institutional ethics approval. All
testers were practitioners in Physioenergetics
with a minimum of 3 years of experience in
using the AR test in practice. The measurements
with the MyotonPro device were performed by
the first author after several hours of training.
MyotonPro
The MyotonPro is a handheld device that
measures muscle tone, stiffness and several
other mechanical parameters in a non-invasive
Version 1, 8.3.2016
and pain-free way. A probe at the tip of the
device creates a mechanical impulse and
transmits the reactive forces of the measured
tissue. The measure of stiffness is derived from
the tissues resistance against the impulse, a
more detailed description of the other
parameters and the device’s technical
specifications can be found in a recent article by
Schneider and colleagues (2015). The device’s
reliability has been demonstrated in several
studies (Agyapong-Badu et al., 2013; Aird et al.,
2012; Bailey, 2013; Chuang et al., 2012; Zinder
and Padua, 2011), with ICCs ranging from 0,68
to 0,99, also for a novice user (Mooney et al.,
2013), and it is described as a valid
measurement method for muscle stiffness
(Pruyn et al., 2015). For this study a MyotonPro
device (Serial No: 000080) was used for the
measurement of muscle stiffness, with the
default setting of multiscan mode, where each
measurement consists of 5 individual
consecutive scans.
Test stimulus
As described above, the system of
Physioenergetics uses various stimuli as
diagnostic ‘questions’, among which the most
frequently used procedure consists of a patient
touching a zone on his body, where he has any
pain or discomfort, immediately before testing
the AR (Lechner and Krieger, 2002, pp. 98–102).
Whenever such a stimulus triggers a positive AR
test, the respective zone is regarded as worth of
further investigation or treatment. A positive AR
test consists of a difference in arm length,
which typically disappears after several seconds.
As this would have been too short to perform
all the measurements, the technique of
magnetic challenge also known as ‘magnetic TL’
(Garten, 2004, p. 38) was used to create a
persistent stimulus. In that approach the
patient’s hand is replaced by a strong
permanent magnet, which is placed on the
patient’s body. As long as the magnet stays in
place, the AR phenomenon persists. This study
used a magnet challenge, employing a
cylindrical magnet with a diameter of 30 mm, a
height of 12 mm and a magnetic force of 3000
Gauss (or 0,3 Tesla).
Procedure
Before the experiment all subjects were
informed about the procedure and risks
4 / 10
involved, the criteria for inclusion and exclusion the cumulated muscle stiffness between left
were checked, and the subjects signed a and right side would increase from M1 to M2.
consent form.
During the experiment the subject was on his
back, the tester was standing or sitting on a
chair at the head of the subject to pull the arms
and the technician alternated between chairs
on the left and right side of the subject to make
the measurements. The subject put his arms in
180° elevation and rested them on the
treatment table while the technician marked
the points for the MyotonPro measurement on
the skin of the subject.
Then the tester performed the baseline AR test Figure 3: Marking arm position with laser beam
without any stimulus, obtaining a negative test
result with both arms at the same length. (In
any other case the subject would have been
excluded.) The end position of the arms during
this negative test was marked by a laser beam
across a dot in the folds of the wrist for
reference (see Figure 3). In this position the
baseline measurement (M1) on the six muscles
(M. latissimus dorsi, M. pectoralis major und M.
biceps brachii, all bilaterally) was performed.
In the next step the tester was looking for an
individually relevant zone on the subject’s body,
where the placement of a permanent magnet
caused a positive result in the AR test. The side
of the observed short arm was recorded, and
then the tester pulled the arms into the same
position as in M1, verified by the laser beam
across the wrist marks. When typically during
an AR test the tester would apply identical
traction on both sides and achieve an apparent
difference in arm length, in this experiment the
length was kept a constant by using different
amount of force on left and right side. In this
position the second measurement (M2) on the
six muscles (M. latissimus dorsi, M. pectoralis
major und M. biceps brachii, all bilaterally) was
performed.
After the experiment the subjects were asked, if
they had experienced any unpleasant effects or
shoulder pain. All subjects who reported
shoulder pain were excluded. To assure a
correct procedure and identical positioning
during the measurements the whole
experiment was recorded with a video camera
positioned directly above the subject. The
expected outcome was that the difference of

Version 1, 8.3.2016 5 / 10
 Table 1: Mean stiffness of the 6 measured muscles
Muscle M1 M1 M2 M2
1 1 1 1
(short/long side) Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation
M. pectoralis major - s 275,79 88,10 278,37 75,80
M. pectoralis major – l 278,31 77,03 270,03 82,39
M. latissimus dorsi – s 331,44 74,21 341,03 65,95
M. latissimus dorsi - l 339,44 82,80 340,21 66,51
M. biceps brachii – s 249,50 37,17 253,11 34,44
M. biceps brachii – l 255,81 30,58 254,18 32,14
N=20, units are N/m

Data analysis and processing
The MyotonPro software for windows (Myoton
Desktop Software, 2015) was used to download
the raw measurement data from the device.
Then several steps of data conversion were
performed using a python script (Python for
Windows, 2015): The 5 multiscan results that
the MyotonPro device had created for each
muscle during each phase, were averaged into
one single result. Then the left/right data were
converted into short arm/long arm data
according to the side the tester had indicated
and the data from the original file were
aggregated into a new table, where all
measurements were aggregated in one single
table row per subject. Excel (Excel 2010, 2010)
software was used to identify outliers, and all
cases of outliers were controlled on the video
recording for deviations from the protocol or
confounding factors.
Statistical analysis
The resulting file was used as the basis for
statistical tests performed in the open source
statistics software GNU PSPP (GNU PSPP
Statistics Software, 2015). In PSPP sums of
stiffness per body side and phase were
calculated and tested for normality with the
Shapiro-Wilks test. As the data did not show a
normal distribution, M1 and M2 were
compared with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
RESULTS
Out of the 24 subjects three had to be excluded
because of shoulder pain during the experiment,
one other subject because the measurement at
one of the muscles was technically impossible
due to a repeated ‘probe jump off’ error. Out of
the remaining 20 subjects 85% showed a short
left arm during the AR test, 15% a short right
arm. In 8 subjects the magnet was placed on
the right side of the body, in 5 subjects on the
left side and in 7 subjects medially. A Chi-
squared test showed no association between
the side of the challenge and the side of the
short arm. All of the subjects described
themselves as right-handed.
Regarding the muscles individually, a trend
towards increase of the short-long-difference
from M1 to M2 was visible in all three muscles
(see Table 2), while a statistically significant

Table2: Between-side differences in M1 and M2

1 1 1 1 1 2
Muscle M1 M2 M1 M2 Difference P
(short side-long Median Median Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
st st
side) (1 Quartile) (1 Quartile)
M. pectoralis major -18,9 (-56,1) -17,6 (-34,2) -2,52 (72,43) 8,34 (61,51) 10,86 0,218
(s-l)
M. latissimus dorsi -21,6 (-36,25) 0,80 (-12,1) -8,00 (45,05) 0,82 (25,81) 8,82 0,025
(s-l)
M. biceps brachii -6,2 (-19,65) -3,4 (-10,3) -6,31 (19,86) -1,07 (24,64) 5,24 0,054
(s-l)
Summe -16,83 (81,61) 8,09 (63,20) 24,92 0,028
1
N=20, units are N/m
2
Significance in Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Version 1, 8.3.2016 6 / 10
difference was only measured in the LD
(Wilcoxon test, p=0,025).
For the sum of all three muscles the between-
sides difference of the baseline measurement
(M1) and the experimental measurement (M2)
were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank
test. It showed a significant difference (p=0,028),
so the hypothesis could be confirmed.
DISCUSSION
The hypothesis could be confirmed that the
between-sides-difference in muscle stiffness
changes significantly after a positive magnet-
challenge. This seems to confirm the claim
made by Physioenergetics practitioners that the
AR is not just an artefact, but a measurable
change in the patient’s muscles.
The measured changes in muscle stiffness were
quite small. This is consistent with the clinical
observation that changes after a positive
challenge are usually not spontaneously visible,
but only become apparent with the traction on
the arms. It also is consistent with the theory,
that other muscles, which were not measured,
contribute to the AR phenomenon. A quick and
crude plausibility check indicates however, that
the measured results might still represent a
relevant part of the AR phenomenon: The mean
stiffness of the 3 muscles adds up to 865 N/m,
the shift between the 2 sides during a positive
AR test was 24,92 N/m, which is about 3% of
the total. Assuming that muscle chains from the
pelvis to the fingers are involved in the AR
phenomenon, we can try to compare the length
from the iliac crest to the tip of the thumb with
the length of the distal phalanx of the thumb,
which is per definition the minimum difference
for a positive a AR test. In a subject with 168 cm
height the distance from the iliac crest to the tip
of the thumb is 107 cm, and the distal phalanx
of the thumb is 3 cm long, results are consistent
with the expected relations between length and
stiffness like they were discussed above. Within
neither of the two measurement phases any
significant difference of stiffness between sides
was detected, although this would have been
expected in M2, when the tester observed a
difference in arm length. Contrary to what was
expected, the non-significant difference in
stiffness was bigger during M1 than during M2,
Version 1, 8.3.2016
but the sides changed: During M1 the stiffness
was higher on (what later in M2 would be) the
long side, during M2 on the short side (see
Table 2). Again this could be explained by the
theory that additional muscles, which were not
measured during this project, are part of the AR
response as well. These other muscles might
increase the difference in stiffness and have a
significant impact on the AR phenomenon.
Muscles like quadratus lumborum, erector
spinae, obliquus internus, obliquus externus or
intertransversarii could be involved through a
lateral flexion of the trunk, the M. serratus
anterior and M. trapezius could have a part in
making the arm on one side appear longer by
an upward rotation of the scapula (Lippert,
2006, p. 103,200).
Mechanisms
Louisa Williams adapted the AR test, calling it
AM-FM-technique (Williams, 2007) and later
Matrix Response Testing, speculating that it was
not a muscular response but rather a rapid
depolarization of the extracellular matrix
(Williams, 2016). Although the references she
cites do not seem to support her hypothesis, it
cannot be ruled out through this study’s results,
as we used a technique that indiscriminately
measures stiffness in muscles and connective
tissue. The use of EMG might help to clarify, if
the AR is a reaction in muscles or connective
tissue.
A reflex pattern similar to the AR, with flexion
on one side and extension on the other side,
has already been described by Sherrington
(1910) as flexion reflex and crossed-extension
reflex. This reflex is also termed nociceptive
flexion reflex (Sandrini et al., 2005), it only
occurs after painful stimulation and is site
dependent. This contrasts with the AR that
seems to occur as a reaction to painful or non-
painful stimuli and independently of the
stimulus’ body side.
Another type of reactions that might be related
with the AR phenomenon are anticipatory
postural adjustments (APAs), minor changes in
activation or inhibition of muscles that serve for
the preparation of a movement, e.g. a step
forward (Massion, 1992). These APAs, which are
described as having a very small (Danion and
Latash, 2011, p. 19) mechanical effect, are not
7 / 10
just associated with voluntary movement, but
also with startling stimuli. The phenomenon of
startling stimuli triggering motor reactions is
termed StartReact, and in contrast to the
classical startle response it can be triggered
even by lower-intensity stimuli not usually
regarded as startling in nature (Nonnekes et al.,
2015). Unlike the AR, APAs have only been
observed in standing individuals so far, but they
seem to have the low threshold and the small
size of the reaction in common with the AR,
making it a potentially promising area for
further research.
International Academy of Physioenergetics in
Vienna, Austria and is applying the AR testing in
his evaluation and treatment of patients.
AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS
RE conceived the research idea, constructed the
literature review and drafted the manuscript.
AGH was in charge of the statistical analysis and
revised the manuscript

CONCLUSIONS
While the results seem to indicate that there is
some kind of measurable effect after a positive
challenge, more research is needed. The
changes in muscle stiffness, which were
measured in this study, were too small to
explain the AR phenomenon entirely, so it
remains open, which other muscles contribute
to the observed reaction.
Furthermore the mechanism behind the
measured changes is not clear. To clarify, if the
stretch reflex is involved, the study could be
repeated without traction on the arms, to see if
the reaction is still measurable in a neutral
position. The measurement of autonomic
parameters like heart rate, breathing rate,
galvanic skin response, etc. could indicate,
whether the observed motor response to a
positive challenge is accompanied by autonomic
responses.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express gratitude to Reinhard
Beikircher and Florian Pichler from the FH
Krems – University for Applied Sciences for
providing a MyotonPro device for the duration
of this study. The authors also thank all subjects
and testers who have dedicated their time to
participate.

FUNDING SOURCES AND

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST
No outside funding was received for this project.
RE is a board member and lecturer of the

Version 1, 8.3.2016 8 / 10
REFERENCES
Agyapong-Badu, S., Aird, L., Bailey, L., Mooney,
K., Mullix, J., Warner, M., Samuel, D., Stokes,
M., 2013. Interrater reliability of muscle tone,
stiffness and elasticity measurements of
rectus femoris and biceps brachii in healthy
young and older males. Work Pap Health Sci
1, 1–11.
Aird, L., Samuel, D., Stokes, M., 2012.
Quadriceps muscle tone, elasticity and
stiffness in older males: Reliability and
symmetry using the MyotonPRO. Arch.
Gerontol. Geriatr. 55, e31–e39.
doi:10.1016/j.archger.2012.03.005
Bailey, L., 2013. Parameters Representing
Muscle Tone, Elasticity and Stiffness of
Biceps Brachii in Healthy Older Males:
Symmetry and Within-Session Reliability
Using the MyotonPRO. J. Neurol. Disord. 01.
doi:10.4172/2329-6895.1000116
Beardall, A.G., 1986. Clinical kinesiology -
Biocomputer Hand Modes. A.G. Beardall,
Lake Grove, Oreg.
Beyerbach, D.M., Rottman, J.N., 2014.
Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-
Defibrillators [WWW Document]. MedScape.
URL
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/162
245-overview (accessed 2.12.16).
Bizzini, M., Mannion, A.F., 2003. Reliability of a
new, hand-held device for assessing skeletal
muscle stiffness. Clin. Biomech. 18, 459–461.
doi:10.1016/S0268-0033(03)00042-1
Blum, C.L., 2006. Managing Acute Low Back
Patients. Am. Chiropr. 28, 38.
Chuang, L., Wu, C., Lin, K., 2012. Reliability,
validity, and responsiveness of
myotonometric measurement of muscle
tone, elasticity, and stiffness in patients with
stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 93, 532–
540.
Danion, F., Latash, M.L. (Eds.), 2011. Motor
control: theories, experiments, and
applications. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Engel, R., Seitschek, M., 2007. Geschichte der
Physioenergetik [WWW Document]. Gesch.
Physioenergetik. URL
Version 1, 8.3.2016
http://www.physioenergetik.com/index.php
/methode/geschichte (accessed 12.31.15).
Excel 2010, 2010. . Microsoft, Redmond,
Oregon.
Gapeyeva, H., Vain, A., 2008. Principles of
applying Myoton in physical medicine and
rehabilitation.
Garten, H., 2004. Lehrbuch Applied Kinesiology.
Elsevier, Urban & Fischer, München.
GNU PSPP Statistics Software, 2015. . Free
Software Foundation.
Klinghardt, D., 2004. Lehrbuch der Psycho-
Kinesiologie, 6., Aufl. ed. INK - Institut f.
Neurobiologie, Stuttgart.
Lechner, J., 1997. Störfelddiagnostik,
Medikamenten- und Materialtest 1 /Theorie
und Praxis des Armlängenreflextests. Verlag
für Ganzheitliche Medizin, Kötzting/Bayer.
Wald.
Lechner, J., Krieger, R., 2002. Armlängenreflex-
Test und Systemische Kinesiologie: Das
Handbuch, 1st ed. VAK Verlags GmbH,
Kirchzarten bei Freiburg.
Lippert, L., 2006. Clinical kinesiology and
anatomy. F.A. Davis, Philadelphia.
Massion, J., 1992. Movement, posture and
equilibrium: interaction and coordination.
Prog. Neurobiol. 38, 35–56.
Mastalier, O. (Ed.), 1996. Ganzheitliche Zahn-,
Mund- und Kieferheilkunde: Regulations-
und Komplementärmethoden ; mit 39
Tabellen. Urban und Schwarzenberg,
München; Wien; Baltimore.
Mooney, K., Warner, M., Stokes, M., 2013.
Symmetry and within-session reliability of
mechanical properties of biceps brachii
muscles in healthy young adult males using
the MyotonPRO device. Work. Pap. Health
Sci. 1:3.
Muelas, J.L.G., 2014. Kinesiología Tu Cuerpo
Responde. Mandala Ediciones, S.A., Madrid.
Myoton Desktop Software, 2015. . Myoton A.S,
Tallin, Estonia.
Nonnekes, J., Carpenter, M.G., Inglis, J.T.,
Duysens, J., Weerdesteyn, V., 2015. What
9 / 10
 startles tell us about control of posture and
gait. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 53, 131–138.
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.04.002
Northup, T.L., 1983. Reflex Diagnosis - A Guide
to Manipulative Therapy, in: The Northup
Book. American Academy of Osteopathy,
Newark, Ohio.
Özkaya, N., Nordin, M., Goldsheyder, D., Leger,
D., 2012. Fundamentals of biomechanics:
equilibrium, motion, and deformation.
Springer, New York.
Pruyn, E.C., Watsford, M.L., Murphy, A.J., 2015.
Validity and reliability of three methods of
stiffness assessment. J. Sport Health Sci.
Python for Windows, 2015. . Python Software
Foundation, Beaverton, OR 97008, USA.
Roca, J.C., 2002. Kinesiología holística. Ediciones
Obelisco, [Barcelona].
Rosner, A.L., Cuthbert, S.C., 2012. Applied
kinesiology: Distinctions in its definition and
interpretation. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 16,
464–487. doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2012.04.008
Rossaint, A., 2001. Kinesiologische Testung
psychosomatischer Zusammenhänge in der
holistischen (Zahn-)Medizin.
Erfahrungsheilkunde 50, 272–279.
doi:10.1055/s-2001-15772
Rossaint, A.L., 2005. Medizinische Kinesiologie,
Physio-Energetik und Ganzheitliche (Zahn-)
Heilkunde: Das Handbuch für Therapeuten,
1., Aufl. ed. VAK, Kirchzarten bei Freiburg.
Rossaint, A.L., 1987. Zahnärztliche Kinesiologie
und EAV, in: Ganzheitliche Zahnheilkunde:
Holistische Zahnmedizin in Physiologischer,
Psychologischer Und Metaphysischer Schau.
Haug, Heidelberg, pp. 90–101.
Sandrini, G., Serrao, M., Rossi, P., Romaniello, A.,
Cruccu, G., Willer, J.C., 2005. The lower limb
Version 1, 8.3.2016
flexion reflex in humans. Prog. Neurobiol. 77,
353–395.
doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2005.11.003
Schneider, S., Peipsi, A., Stokes, M., Knicker, A.,
Abeln, V., 2015. Feasibility of monitoring
muscle health in microgravity environments
using Myoton technology. Med. Biol. Eng.
Comput. 53, 57–66. doi:10.1007/s11517-
014-1211-5
Sherrington, C.S., 1910. Flexion-reflex of the
limb, crossed extension-reflex, and reflex
stepping and standing. J. Physiol. 40, 28–121.
Tschernitschek, H., Fink, M., 2005. “Applied
Kinesiology” in medicine and dentistry – a
critical review. Wien. Med. Wochenschr. 155,
59–64. doi:10.1007/s10354-004-0113-9
Van Assche, R., 1996. Cranio-sakrale Therapie
und Physioenergetik, in: Das cranio-sakrale
System, Medizin und ganzheitliche
Zahnheilkunde. Hüthig, Heidelberg, pp. 27–
50.
Walther, D.S., 1981. Applied kinesiology.
Systems DC, Pueblo, Colo. (275 W. Abriendo
Ave., Pueblo 81004).
Williams, L., 2016. Matrix Response Testing
Method - MRT Method, Energetic Testing
[WWW Document]. Radic. Med. URL
http://www.radicalmedicine.com/mrt-
method/ (accessed 1.23.16).
Williams, L.L., 2007. Radical Medicine (Profound
Intervention in a Profoundly Toxic Age, 1st
ed. International Medical Arts Publishing,
San Francisco.
Zinder, S.M., Padua, D.A., 2011. Reliability,
validity, and precision of a handheld
myometer for assessing in vivo muscle
stiffness. J Sport Rehabil 6.
10 / 10