Summary
A survey of 1,519 self-selected people with hearing loss or related conditions on how often they find, borrow and use assistive listening systems and captions in public venues, and which they prefer.
Key findings
- 62% said they seldom or never find hearing accommodations in public venues, and 47% avoid events they know have none (another 28% sometimes do).
- Where respondents found an audio system, it was an FM system (with or without neckloops) 51% of the time, a hearing loop 27% and infrared 14%, with Wi-Fi and others making up the rest.
- Only 37% always or usually borrow the equipment where a venue offers an assistive listening system with headsets, and 39% where it offers a neckloop; in a looped venue, the report gives 69% of respondents with telecoils as always using the system. In the committee's published response counts, 69% is always or usually (496 of 719); 367 of 719 (51%) always do.
- States that over 60% preferred hearing loops when choosing among five assistive listening technologies. Asked which single system a city council chamber should install, 61% of those giving an opinion chose CART or captions and 23% a hearing loop; of the 312 who chose one of the five listening systems, 187 (60%) chose the loop, which appears to be the basis of the over-60% figure. Auracast was not an option.
- 52% knew their devices had a telecoil (70% counting telecoil-capable remote microphones), 17% have a telecoil but do not use it, and 17% knew nothing about telecoils before the survey. Among those answering yes or no, 96% called Bluetooth a must-have for their next hearing aids and 73% a telecoil.
- Common complaints included untrained staff, dead batteries, missing signage, loops with dead spots, unhygienic headsets, too few receivers, neckloops that did not work or were not offered, and delay.
- The respondent-comment list on printed page 6 also includes staff unable to locate devices, difficulty finding the on/off switch, uncomfortable headsets, long waits to return receivers and the overall effort involved. These are examples of reported problems, without a separate rate for each barrier or technology.
- Conclusions (pp. 7-8) lists equipment failures, checkout effort and making a disability visible among reported reasons for avoiding attendance. The consumer recommendations (pp. 8-9) ask listeners to give venue management positive and negative feedback and report missing or malfunctioning systems.
- Recommends adequate staff training, a good charging protocol and a simple lending and returning routine for loaned receivers; information on the venue's website, in programmes and with tickets, signs at all entrances and announcements at the start of events.
- Recommends that venues consider ease of use and consumers' preferences when acquiring a system, and that audiologists and dispensers give every patient information about hearing loops and telecoils and recommend hearing aids with telecoils whenever feasible.
- Nearly 23% of respondents had a cochlear or bone-anchored implant; its cross-tabulations are by age, experience and degree of loss, not by device.
- The Study Sample section (page 2) describes 1,519 volunteers with self-reported hearing loss or other hearing-related conditions; the Research Design section includes auditory processing disorder.
- The Study Sample section describes the 1,519 volunteers as having self-reported hearing loss or other hearing-related conditions; the research design also includes auditory processing disorder.
- In the section discussing venue systems, the report gives 16% for experience with Wi-Fi audio and 53% for distracting or objectionable delay. The companion response charts (CCAA_Graphs.pdf, Q23A-Q24, printed pages 27-28) give 217 reporting use but 251 substantive delay ratings (119 not conscious of delay, 88 distracting, 44 objectionable). Thus 132 of 251 ratings produce the rounded 53%; the charts do not establish that this is the same set of people who reported use.
Limits
A self-selected online sample recruited through hearing-loss websites, newsletters and groups (Hearing Tracker, Hearing Health Foundation, Soundly and others): nearly 80% were seniors, 66% reported severe-to-profound loss, 23% had an implant, and 75% of the 42% in a support group belonged to HLAA. Several authors are long-standing hearing loop advocates or run hearing-related businesses, and funding is not stated. The report says some percentages differ from the Frost Center tables because "not applicable" answers were removed. The report gives no fieldwork dates; the committee's survey page gives 5 to 24 September 2023. The report is dated 8 January 2024, while its file name says 12 January. The response counts behind the percentages are published separately as charts (CCAA Survey on Assistive Communication Technology: Graphs, a separate record in this library).
Read the original
www.ccaa.name/Report_Final_1-12-24.pdf
Cited in
- Which hearing devices can receive which systems?Open
- Auracast, hearing loop, infrared, RF or Wi-Fi: which suits which room?Disputed
- How many receivers and neckloops does each code require, and how should a loan pool be run?Partly answered
- How many listeners carry a telecoil, an Auracast-capable device or a smartphone?Disputed
- What do listeners prefer, and how often do they use venue systems?Partly answered
- How is an installed hearing loop checked against IEC 60118-4, and how often does it pass?Partly answered
- Where do hearing loops fall short: metal, spill, noise and upkeep?Partly answered
- How much delay does Wi-Fi streaming add, and when does it matter?Not reliable yet
- What does Wi-Fi streaming need from the venue's network and from listeners' phones?Partly answered
- Where does infrared assistive listening work, and where does it fall short?Partly answered
- Which radio bands can venue FM and RF systems use, and what limits them?Partly answered
- How do listeners learn that a venue has assistive listening, and which signs and symbols do the rules ask for?Partly answered
- What works in places of worship, and what do the rules ask of them?Partly answered
- What reaches a cochlear implant user in a venue, and how well?Partly answered
- Do neckloops give telecoil users good sound from FM, infrared, Wi-Fi and Auracast receivers?Not reliable yet
- What works in courtrooms, council chambers and other meeting rooms where speech must be heard by all and kept in the room?Partly answered
- What works in hospitals, clinics and pharmacies, where a misheard word can matter most?Partly answered
- What does a listener have to do to use each system, and where do people get stuck?Partly answered
- How many people in an audience are likely to need assistive listening?Partly answered
Cite this source
Committee for Communication Access in America (Frazier SO, Bailey A, Cadwell B, Clifford C, Liebe K, Myers D, Sterkens J). Consumer use of and preferences for assistive communication technology in public places. Committee for Communication Access in America. 8 January 2024. https://www.ccaa.name/Report_Final_1-12-24.pdf (accessed 13 October 2026).
Every finding here cites its source, and who funded each source is labelled. This site does not recommend products. Found an error or a missing study? Suggest a correction.