Fitting range of the BAHA Intenso.

Audiometric characteristics of a recently introduced more powerful, behind-the-ear, BAHA sound processor, the BAHA Intenso, were evaluated in 23 patients with contra-indications for using conventional hearing aids. All patients had mixed hearing loss with boneconduction thresholds ranging between 30 and 50 dB HL. Boneconduction gain, defined as the difference in aided free-field detection thresholds and unaided boneconduction thresholds, was calculated at the octave frequencies between 500 Hz and 4 kHz. Median boneconduction gain of the Intenso ranges from 0 dB at 500 ;Hz to 12 ;dB at 2 kHz with substantial interindividual variability. The upper limit of the BAHA Intenso's fitting range was established by requiring aided speech reception thresholds with CVC-monosyllables of at most 60 dB SPL. The fitting range of the BAHA Intenso appeared to be limited to 42, 44, 58, and 48 dB HL for boneconduction thresholds at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 ;kHz, respectively. Loudness growth functions at 0.5 and 3 kHz as obtained with 7-point categorical scaling showed an adequate aided dynamic range.

The voice handicap of student-teachers and risk factors perceived to have a negative influence on the voice.

A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was performed. The objectives of the study were to assess the psychosocial impact of current voice complaints as perceived by student-teachers with voice complaints in comparison with student-teachers without voice complaints, and to observe the pattern of risk factors in relation to their voice handicap. Subjects in the general population without a voice-demanding profession were selected as a reference group for limited comparison with the total group of student-teachers (future professional voice users). The respondents to the questionnaires were anonymous. Among the student-teachers, 17.2% reported current voice complaints in comparison with 9.7% of the reference group, and the odds ratio was 1.94, which showed the relative risk. Student-teachers had significantly greater total Voice Handicap Index (VHI) scores than the reference group (P = 0.034). The VHI subscale scores were not significantly different (P > 0.05). Student-teachers who reported current voice complaints had a significantly higher total VHI and subscale scores than student teachers without voice complaints (P < 0.001). Of the student-teachers without voice complaints, 17.0% had VHI scores greater than the 75th percentile. These persons may be neglecting their voice handicap and probably represent the false-negative cases in the estimation of voice complaints. Logistic regression analysis of each of the given risk factors with the VHI as the independent variable showed that the perceived negative influence of the given risk factors on their voices was significantly greater with increasing VHI scores across the VHI range. A significant correlation was observed between the number of perceived risk factors and increasing VHI scores across the VHI range. An increased awareness of risk factors in relation to their voice handicap would serve to motivate student-teachers to change factors that contributed to their voice problem. Attention to all risk factors, which the subjects perceive to be a risk, would aid in effective management of their voice handicap.