Logo image
Back
Impact of theta burst stimulation on face processing in autism: Interim results from a randomised controlled trial
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Impact of theta burst stimulation on face processing in autism: Interim results from a randomised controlled trial

Briella Rodriguez, Aron T. Hill, Paul B. Fitzgerald, Karen Barlow, Adam Guastella, Melissa K. Licari, Nigel C. Rogasch, Scott R. Clark, Ann-Maree Vallence, Kelsie Boulton, …
Brain stimulation, Vol.18(1), pp.538-538
2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2024.12.943
pdf
Published1.27 MBDownloadView
Published (Version of Record)CC BY-NC-ND V4.0,  Open Access

Abstract

autism spectrum disorder face processing theta burst stimulation randomised controlled trial
Background Challenges with face processing are well documented in autism, a condition for which there are no biomedical therapies that target social difficulties. Face processing has been linked to the right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ), and there is both neuroimaging and neurophysiological evidence of atypical rTPJ function in autism. The current study aimed to investigate whether intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) administered to the rTPJ can improve performance on neuropsychological measures of face processing in autism. Methods Here we report the interim results from an ongoing randomised controlled trial. Participants (n = 66) diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (aged 14-40 years, M = 21.32, SD = 7.03; 38 male, 28 female) received four weeks of either active or sham iTBS (600 pulses at 70% resting motor threshold) to the rTPJ (20 sessions), targeted via MRI(T1)-guided neuronavigation. Assessments of face processing (Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test [RMET], Benton Facial Recognition Test [BFRT], and Cambridge Face Memory Test [CFMT]) were conducted before, after, and one month following iTBS. Data were analysed using mixed model analysis of variance. Results There was an interaction effect (time x condition) for the BFRT, F(2, 128) = 5.32, p = .006, ηp2 = .08. Follow-up analyses revealed stronger performance in active compared to sham at one-month post iTBS (p = .016). There were no interaction effects for the CFMT or RMET. Further analysis, however, revealed significant differences at one-month iTBS on the RMET, t(61) = 2.11, p = .039, Cohen's d = 0.53, with participants who received active stimulation (M = .73, SD = .15) more accurate than participants who received sham (M = .65, SD = .16). Conclusions These findings suggest that iTBS applied to the rTPJ can improve face processing, which could have clinical implications for biomedical therapeutics in autism. Research Category and Technology and Methods Clinical Research: 10. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)

Details

Metrics

20 File views/ downloads
40 Record Views
Logo image