Cervical dystonia remains a movement disorder with unclear pathophysiological mechanisms, which has constrained the development of effective noninvasive treatments. Lesion network mapping previously identified a distributed brain network associated with lesions that produce cervical dystonia; a network hub in the somatosensory cortex (S1) was proposed as a plausible target for noninvasive neuromodulation. This trial prospectively tested whether modulating that lesion-network-derived S1 hub with continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS) could reduce dystonic symptoms.
Thirteen patients with idiopathic cervical dystonia participated (mean age 57.85 ± 10.85 years). The study used a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, crossover design. Each participant received two 10-session blocks of bilateral somatosensory cortex cTBS: one block of active stimulation and one block of sham stimulation, with block order counterbalanced across participants. The manuscript reports that the stimulation targeted the lesion-network hub in S1 identified from prior mapping.
The primary clinical outcome was change in dystonia severity measured by the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Scale (TWSTRS). Objective head and neck movement patterns were recorded using a wearable motion sensor to measure changes in range and patterns of motion. Neurophysiological assessment included motor evoked potentials (MEPs) to evaluate corticospinal excitability. Resting-state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) was acquired to assess stimulation-induced changes in functional connectivity from the stimulation site and across the motor network.
Active cTBS did not produce a statistically significant reduction in TWSTRS scores compared with sham: the condition × timepoint interaction had a p value of .149. However, objective motion sensing detected a significant increase in head and neck range of motion with active versus sham cTBS (p = .015). The manuscript does not report additional numerical TWSTRS subscale values or effect sizes beyond the interaction p value in the abstract; those detailed data are contained in the full paper and supplementary material.
Neurophysiological measures showed a decrease in corticospinal excitability following sham stimulation (p = .042) but not after active cTBS. In rs-fMRI analyses, stimulation of the S1 site did not produce significant connectivity changes originating from that somatosensory stimulation site after active cTBS. Notably, significant functional connectivity changes were identified from the globus pallidus interna (GPi), suggesting network-level modulation that did not map directly to the stimulated S1 hub.
The intervention was well tolerated by all patients in this pilot trial. The abstract reports no specific adverse event frequencies or severe safety signals. Full adverse event details are reported in the main manuscript and supplementary information.
This randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot trial is among the first prospective tests of neuromodulation targeted to a lesion-network-mapping-derived cortical hub in cervical dystonia. Under the specific protocol used (bilateral S1 cTBS, two 10-session blocks), active stimulation did not significantly improve the primary clinical measure (TWSTRS) relative to sham. An objective secondary signal—improved range of motion—was noted with active cTBS, indicating the potential for measurable motor changes despite the negative primary outcome. Imaging results implicating the GPi suggest that network effects may be more complex than direct modulation of the stimulated cortical hub.
Collectively, these findings indicate that while the S1 lesion-network target is biologically plausible, the tested cTBS parameters and dose did not deliver a clinically significant TWSTRS benefit in this small sample. The objective range-of-motion improvement and GPi connectivity changes support further exploration of network-targeted neuromodulation for cervical dystonia.
This was a small pilot study (n = 13) and therefore underpowered to detect small-to-moderate clinical effects. The authors note that the specific cTBS dose and protocol may have been insufficient; they recommend that future studies consider higher-dose protocols or alternative stimulation patterns to this target. The abstract does not provide detailed subgroup analyses or long-term follow-up outcomes; those details would be found in the full article and supplementary data. Generalizability beyond idiopathic cervical dystonia or to different stimulation parameters remains to be established.
The trial was registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000417886). Deidentified data from the study are available at the OpenNeuro dataset (https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds008174) and the Big NIBS data repository (https://bignibsdata.com), as reported by the authors.
Funding sources reported include the Dystonia Coalition and other grants listed in the manuscript. Multiple author funding and competing interest statements are declared in the article, including industry honoraria and advisory relationships for one author; the abstract lists specific support and declarations. Readers should consult the full manuscript for the complete competing interests and funding disclosure.