<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>02034caa a2200205   4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="008">210621s9999    xx            000 0 und d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="022" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">2169-5725</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Animesh Barman</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2="0">
    <subfield code="a">Amplification strategy to enhance speech perception in individuals with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2016</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">25-35</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="490" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="v">Volume 14  Issue 10</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Objective: The present study was conducted to determine if low-cut modified amplification improved aided speech perception compared to standard NAL-NL1 prescriptive amplification in individuals with ANSD. The study further aimed to check the influence of the number of channels in a hearing aid on speech perception with low-cut modification of amplification. Study design: A total of 22 individuals with ANSD in the age range 15&#x2013;42 years were recruited for the study. The unaided and aided speech identification scores were obtained with standard amplification and low-cut amplification settings in both a four- and a 16-channel digital hearing aid. Results: The results showed that low-cut amplification was slightly better than standard amplification for aided speech perception. Such an improvement could be attributed to the elimination of upward spread of masking during low-cut modification of amplification. In addition, improvement was greater with a four-channel hearing aid compared to a 16-channel hearing aid. Conclusions: The use of low-cut amplification with a low number of channels in the hearing aid for individuals with ANSD is recommended. However, further studies are essential to determine whether the slight improvement in aided scores with a low-cut fitting strategy leads to actual improvement in quality of life.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">low-cut modification, number of channels, upward spread of masking, aided benefit</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Prashanth Prabhu</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Sujeet Kumar Sinha </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Hearing, Balance and Communication</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3109/21695717.2015.1075322</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">FJAS</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">FJAS</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">17701</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">17701</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
