Background and purpose: To support clinical decision-making in central neurological disorders, a physical examination is used to assess responses to passive muscle stretch. However, what exactly is being assessed is expressed and interpreted in different ways. A clear diagnostic framework is lacking. Therefore, the aim was to arrive at unambiguous terminology about the concepts and measurement around pathophysiological neuromuscular response to passive muscle stretch. Methods: During two consensus meetings, 37 experts from 12 European countries filled online questionnaires based on a Delphi approach, followed by plenary discussion after rounds. Consensus was reached for agreement ≥75%. Results: The term hyper-resistance should be used to describe the phenomenon of impaired neuromuscular response during passive stretch, instead of for example ‘spasticity’ or ‘hypertonia’. From there, it is essential to distinguish non-neural (tissue-related) from neural (central nervous system related) contributions to hyper-resistance. Tissue contributions are elasticity, viscosity and muscle shortening. Neural contributions are velocity dependent stretch hyperreflexia and non-velocity dependent involuntary background activation. The term ‘spasticity’ should only be used next to stretch hyperreflexia, and ‘stiffness’ next to passive tissue contributions. When joint angle, moment and electromyography are recorded, components of hyper-resistance within the framework can be quantitatively assessed. Conclusions: A conceptual framework of pathophysiological responses to passive muscle stretch is defined. This framework can be used in clinical assessment of hyper-resistance and will improve communication between clinicians. Components within the framework are defined by objective parameters from instrumented assessment. These parameters need experimental validation in order to develop treatment algorithms based on the aetiology of the clinical phenomena.

Knee instability is a major problem in patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury or knee osteoarthritis. A valid and clinically meaningful measure for functional knee instability is lacking. The concept of the gait sensitivity norm, the normalized perturbation response of a walking system to external perturbations, could be a sensible way to quantify knee instability. The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility of this concept for measurement of knee responses, using controlled external perturbations during walking in healthy subjects.
Nine young healthy participants walked on a treadmill, while three dimensional kinematics were measured. Sudden lateral translations of the treadmill were applied at five different intensities during stance. Right knee kinematic responses and spatio-temporal parameters were tracked for the perturbed stride and following four cycles, to calculate perturbation response and gait sensitivity norm values (i.e. response/perturbation) in various ways.
The perturbation response values in terms of knee flexion and abduction increased with perturbation intensity and decreased with an increased number of steps after perturbation. For flexion and ab/adduction during midswing, the gait sensitivity norm values were shown to be constant over perturbation intensities, demonstrating the potential of the gait sensitivity norm as a robust measure of knee responses to perturbations.
These results show the feasibility of using the gait sensitivity norm concept for certain gait indicators based on kinematics of the knee, as a measure of responses during perturbed gait. The current findings in healthy subjects could serve as reference-data to quantify pathological knee instability.