Assistive Listening Knowledge Base
  • Advocacy article

Hearing Loop – the Preferred Large Area Assistive Listening System: Here's Why

From https://assistivelisteningknowledgebase.org/evidence/sterkens-2019-canadian-audiologist/ · record checked 9 October 2026

  • Sterkens J
  • Canadian Audiologist 6(1)

Nonprofit advocacy (written by Juliëtte Sterkens, AuD, who according to the author note has worked since 2012 as an advocate for hearing loops and other assistive technology with the Hearing Loss Association of America, with grant funding from the David and Carol Myers Foundation; published in the Canadian Academy of Audiology's magazine)

Summary

A loop advocate's case, written for audiologists, that hearing loops serve listeners better than RF, infrared or Wi-Fi systems, with a list of problems users report with borrowed receivers.

Key findings

  • Describes infrared as contained within a room, workable where there is no sunlight and free of RF interference, and most used in cinemas, performing arts venues and courtrooms. It says the need for an almost direct line of sight can cause frequent drop-outs, with a hand, clothing or a tall person causing a loud static noise.
  • Says the advantages of RF and infrared are measured in ease of installation and lower installation cost for the venue, and that both can carry several channels for translation or audio description.
  • Lists problems users report with borrowed receivers: batteries that are empty or nearly so, intermittent sound, unsanitary earphones, sound leaking from headphones, having to remove hearing aids to fit under-the-chin receivers, and staff unaware that neckloops exist.
  • Says neckloops can become intermittent after rough handling and may be fitted to receivers too weak to give a field of 100-400 mA/m, and that installers of RF or infrared may not check the venue for electromagnetic interference, which telecoil users hear as a buzz.
  • Cites a survey of hearing-aid wearers by the Committee for Communication Access in New Mexico in which 18% always used the equipment where a system required borrowing it, against 54.5% who always used a loop when one was available.
  • Argues that Wi-Fi streaming to listeners' phones does not qualify as a public assistive listening system, needs technical confidence and adds delay, and that no consumer studies support it.
  • Says loops can be more difficult, impractical and costlier to install at some facilities, and that more end users will ultimately bring the cost per user down.
  • Says users of hearing aids without telecoils may have to remove their hearing aids for under-the-chin infrared receivers to fit in their ears.
  • Says partners of people with more severe hearing loss have reported audible leakage of sound from the headphones of infrared or FM receivers.

Limits

An advocacy article by a hearing loop advocate, with no measurements of its own. The New Mexico survey figures are second-hand: the article gives no sample size or method, and its reference (an article by Stephen Frazier in Sound Communications, October 2016) was not read. Date from the page's publication metadata.

Read the original

canadianaudiologist.ca/hearing-loop-large-area-system-feature

Link checked . We link to the original and do not host copies.

Cited in

Cite this source

Sterkens J. Hearing Loop – the Preferred Large Area Assistive Listening System: Here's Why. Canadian Audiologist 6(1). 21 January 2019. https://canadianaudiologist.ca/hearing-loop-large-area-system-feature/ (accessed 9 October 2026).

The accessed date is when this library last checked the link; use the date you read it. To point readers to this summary instead, link to https://assistivelisteningknowledgebase.org/evidence/sterkens-2019-canadian-audiologist/

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.