In this article, we examine the effects of Theta-Burst TMS stimulation on cortical plasticity in individuals suffering from Fragile X syndrome and individuals on the autistic spectrum.
Fragile X Syndrome (FXS), also known as Martin-Bell Syndrome, is a genetic abnormality found on the X chromosome.1,2 Individuals suffering from FXS display abnormalities in the expression of FMR1 – a protein required for typical, healthy neural development.3 Recent data has suggested that the loss of this protein can cause the cortex to be hyperexcitable thereby affecting overall patterns of neural plasticity.4,5
In addition, Fragile X shows a strong comorbidity with autism: in fact, 30% of children with FXS are diagnosed with autism, and 2 – 5% of autistic children suffer from FXS.6
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (a non-invasive neurostimulatory and neuromodulatory technique that can transiently or lastingly modulate cortical excitability via the application of localized magnetic field pulses 7,8) represents a unique method of exploring plasticity and the manifestations of FXS within affected individuals. More specifically, Theta-Burst Stimulation (TBS), a specific stimulatory protocol shown to modulate cortical plasticity for a duration up to 30 minutes after stimulation cessation in healthy populations, has already proven an efficacious tool in the exploration of abnormal plasticity.9,10
Recent studies have shown the effects of TBS last considerably longer in individuals on the autistic spectrum – up to 90 minutes.11 This extended effect-duration suggests an underlying abnormality in the brain’s natural plasticity state in autistic individuals – similar to the hyperexcitability induced by Fragile X Syndrome.
In this experiment, utilizing single-pulse motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) as our benchmark, we will explore the effects of both intermittent and continuous TBS on cortical plasticity in individuals suffering from FXS and individuals on the Autistic Spectrum.
1. Determine Resting Motor Threshold:
2. Determine Active Motor Threshold
3. Determine Baseline Mep
4. Setting TMS Parameters
5. Tms Stimulation
6. Determine Post-stimulation MEP
7. Representative Results
When utilizing an iTBS pattern, you should notice an increase in MEP values for a duration reflecting the subject’s natural state of plasticity. Likewise, when utilizing a cTBS pattern, you should notice a decrease in MEP values for a duration reflecting the subject’s natural state of plasticity.
Figure 1. Diagram of electrode placement for MEP measurement.
Figure 2. Diagram of the iTBS stimulation pattern.
Figure 3. Diagram of the cTBS stimulation pattern.
Knowing that prolonged duration of TMS after-effects is reflective of atypical neural plasticity, studies such as this could serve to create better and more precise diagnostic protocols for Autism and related disorders.
Similarly, with more data, we may be able to find temporal biological markers for other neurological pathologies – including Fragile X syndrome. In this case, although there is not yet a therapeutic remediation option, early detection could help parents and educators determine best practices for their own child’s unique developmental trajectory.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
Material Name | Type | Company | Catalogue Number | Comment |
---|---|---|---|---|
Alcohol Swabs | ||||
EMG Electrodes | ||||
EMG Measuring Equipment/Software | ||||
Ear Plugs | ||||
Marker or Grease Pen | ||||
Any Single Pulse Capable TMS Device | ||||
Any rTMS Capable TMS Device (for TBS) | ||||
Any Compatible Figure-of-Eight Coil | ||||
Frameless Stereotactic Equipment (Optional) |