Alginate–Polyethylene Oxide Blend Nanofibers and the Role of the Carrier Polymer in Electrospinning

We present here a systematic investigation to understand why aqueous sodium alginate can only be electrospun into fibers through a blend with another polymer; specifically, polyethylene oxide (PEO). We seek to examine and understand the role of PEO as the “carrier polymer”. The addition of PEO favorably reduces electrical conductivity and surface tension of the alginate solution, aiding in fiber formation. While PEO has the ability to coordinate through its ether group (−COC−) with metal cation like the sodium cation of sodium alginate, we demonstrate in this study using PEO as well as polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) that coordination may have little effect on electrospinnability. More importantly, we show that PEO as carrier polymer provides molecular entanglement that is required for electrospinning. Since the selected carrier polymer provides the necessary entanglement, this carrier polymer must be electrospinnable, entangled and of a high molecular weight (more than 600 kDa for PEO). On the basis of these requirements, we stipulate that the PEO–PEO interaction of the high molecular-weight entangled PEO is key to “carrying” the alginate from solution to fibers during electrospinning. Further, using the resulting understanding of the role of PEO, we were able to increase the alginate concentration by employing a higher molecular-weight PEO: up to 70 wt % alginate using 2000 kDa PEO and, with, the addition of Triton X-100 surfactant, up to 85 wt % alginate, higher than previously reported

Auditory Masking Effects on Speech Fluency in Apraxia of Speech and Aphasia: Comparison to Altered Auditory Feedback

PURPOSE: To study the effects of masked auditory feedback (MAF) on speech fluency in adults with aphasia and/or apraxia of speech (APH/AOS). We hypothesized that adults with AOS would increase speech fluency when speaking with noise. Altered auditory feedback (AAF; i.e., delayed/frequency-shifted feedback) was included as a control condition not expected to improve speech fluency. METHOD: Ten participants with APH/AOS and 10 neurologically healthy (NH) participants were studied under both feedback conditions. To allow examination of individual responses, we used an ABACA design. Effects were examined on syllable rate, disfluency duration, and vocal intensity. RESULTS: Seven of 10 APH/AOS participants increased fluency with masking by increasing rate, decreasing disfluency duration, or both. In contrast, none of the NH participants increased speaking rate with MAF. In the AAF condition, only 1 APH/AOS participant increased fluency. Four APH/AOS participants and 8 NH participants slowed their rate with AAF. CONCLUSIONS: Speaking with MAF appears to increase fluency in a subset of individuals with APH/AOS, indicating that overreliance on auditory feedback monitoring may contribute to their disorder presentation. The distinction between responders and nonresponders was not linked to AOS diagnosis, so additional work is needed to develop hypotheses for candidacy and underlying control mechanisms