Summary
Two online surveys of hearing aid and cochlear implant users who had listened in a looped venue, asking how the loop changed their hearing and which venue system they prefer.
Key findings
- The Method section describes Survey 2 as an emailed follow-up to Survey 1 respondents who supplied an address. The sample description gives 89% in the United States, 10% in Europe and 1% in Australia and Canada. Figure 3 and its accompanying text include homes among the settings rated, alongside conferences/classrooms, worship venues and theatres/auditoriums.
- The Results text beside Table 1 reports no change or worse listening for 7-9% on sound quality, speech understanding, concentration and background noise, and for 24% on separating speech from music (Survey 2, n=243). These are the less favourable responses to the same scales that produced the positive ratings.
- Survey 1 had 866 usable responses from people asked to think of one looped venue. On a 1-10 scale from "heard nothing" to "heard every word", the mean rating of their hearing device was 4.9 without a loop and 8.7 in the loop; 13.5% rated 8 or higher without the loop against 86% with it.
- Nearly 9 in 10 agreed or strongly agreed that the loop increased their satisfaction with their hearing aid or cochlear implant. Of 418 written comments, 84% were positive; 44 people (5%) said the loop gave them no benefit.
- In follow-up Survey 2 (243 usable responses), about 7 in 10 rated the loop +4 or +5 on a -5 to +5 scale for sound quality, speech understanding, less need to concentrate and ignoring background noise; 38% gave that rating for separating voices from music.
- Offered three options (loop with their hearing device, FM or infrared with a neckloop, FM or infrared with a headset), 81% chose the loop as their preferred large-venue system. Among the 125 respondents who had used all three, 88% chose the loop, 12.8% FM or infrared with a neckloop and 4.8% FM or infrared with a headset.
- 82% said they were very or extremely likely to seek out ticketed venues with a hearing loop.
- Only 35% said their hearing care professional had demonstrated the telecoil when fitting their device.
- Negative comments named uneven loop signals, electrical buzzing, presenters not using microphones, loops left switched off, and telecoil problems (orientation, missing ambient sound, finding the setting).
- The preference question was asked in Survey 2 (Figure 8, most preferred hearing technology in large venues, n=243).
- Recruited through HLAA's membership, the @LoopWisconsin blog, the UK Hearing Link website, the Hearing Health Matters blog, and Facebook and Twitter advertisements; the telecoil-demonstration question (Figure 11) was also in Survey 2.
- The authors acknowledge that people against loops or in favour of other wireless technologies may not have responded, and that results could differ with milder hearing losses or other wireless technologies.
- Implant users made up 34% of respondents in Survey 1 and 21% in Survey 2 (bimodal users included), against under 1% of US hearing-device users in MarkeTrak 2009; one implant user wrote of hearing "a chainsaw like background noise" when using the implant's telecoil.
- Does not report results separately for implant users.
- Figure 9 identifies the sample behind the 82% likelihood of seeking ticketed loop venues as the 243 respondents to Survey 2.
Limits
A convenience sample, which the authors say is not random or representative: respondents were mostly HLAA members, likely aware of HLAA's loop campaign, answering surveys titled "Get in the Hearing Loop", and everyone had already used a loop. They report far more profound hearing loss than typical hearing aid users, and 89% were in the US. The preference question offered no Bluetooth or Wi-Fi option and counted only systems a respondent had used. The authors could not check loop quality or telecoil settings. Survey dates are not given. The article is inconsistent about the preference question: its method describes ranking three technologies "used while watching TV", while Figure 8 is titled as the most preferred technology in large venues, and the figures for the 125 respondents who had used all three (88%, 12.8% and 4.8%) add up to more than 100%.
Read the original
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
- Are telecoils switched on and set up well enough for loops to work?Not reliable yet
- Where does infrared assistive listening work, and where does it fall short?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
Cite this source
Kochkin S, Sterkens J, Compton-Conley C, Beck DL, Taylor B, Kricos P, Caccavo M, Holmes A, Powers TA. Consumer Perceptions of the Impact of Inductively Looped Venues on the Utility of Their Hearing Devices. Hearing Review (October 2014 issue). 24 September 2014. https://hearingreview.com/hearing-products/implants-bone-conduction/cochlear-implants/consumer-perceptions-impact-inductively-looped-venues-utility-hearing-devices (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.