Neural Noise

Cerebellar magnetic stimulation and beta power and phase synchronisation in spinocerebellar ataxia type 3

2 min read

  • Cerebellar magnetic stimulation increases beta power and phase synchronisation in spinocerebellar ataxia type 3 (SCA3).1
  • TMS and beta/phase synchronisation are electrophysiology and connectivity methods for ataxia.1 1

Weekly enrichment (2026-07-20)

  • The source article is “Cerebellar magnetic stimulation increased beta power and phase synchronisation in spinocerebellar ataxia type 3,” published in Clinical Neurophysiology (2026; DOI 10.1016/j.clinph.2026.2111699) and copyright the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology; listed contributors include Brad Manor, Junhong Zhou and Álvaro Pascual-Leone.2
  • It is a sham-controlled study in SCA3 patients using resting-state EEG recorded before and after a 3-week course of cerebellar repetitive TMS (rTMS) or sham, with EEG power and functional connectivity analyzed to identify treatment-induced changes.2
  • Active cerebellar rTMS significantly increased beta power and increased synchronization between occipital and centrotemporal regions, while no such effects appeared in the sham group.2
  • The authors report that these beta-band power and synchronization features had predictive value for long-term improvement in ataxia, positioning them as candidate biomarkers for treatment optimization and efficacy prediction.2
  • Context: SCA3 (Machado-Joseph disease) is the most common autosomal dominant ataxia with no cure, and prior cerebellar rTMS results in SCA3 have been described as effective but suboptimal, motivating mechanistic EEG studies.2
  • A separate randomized, double-blind controlled trial (Chen et al., Brain Stimulation 2025, DOI 10.1016/j.brs.2025.09.020) enrolled 38 SCA3 patients plus 35 matched healthy controls and delivered 126 intermittent theta-burst (iTBS) sessions (6 per day for 21 consecutive days).3
  • In that trial, active iTBS improved International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) scores versus sham at post-treatment (mean difference 2.67; 95% CI 0.53–4.81; p = 0.016) and at 3-month follow-up (4.11; 95% CI 1.02–7.20; p = 0.011), restored cerebello-cortical inhibition via enhanced N45 amplitude (1.31; 95% CI 0.08–2.53; p = 0.038), and normalized frontocentral beta power toward healthy-control levels (Cohen’s d = 0.82).3
  • Earlier randomized evidence also supports cerebellar TMS in SCA3: Shi et al. (Journal of Neurology 2023, DOI 10.1007/s00415-023-11848-2) reported that cerebellar TMS reduced ataxia severity on SARA and ICARS scales in a single-blinded controlled trial.4
  • Caveat/fallback: the primary ScienceDirect source URL did not load on direct fetch, so these details were assembled from the article’s indexed abstract and DOI record; exact sample size and stimulation parameters for the Clinical Neurophysiology paper were not reported in the available abstract.2

Footnotes

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1388245726001987?dgcid=rss_sd_all ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2026.2111699 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2025.09.020 ↩ ↩2

  4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-023-11848-2 ↩

Graph View