What reaches a cochlear implant user in a venue, and how well?

Why it matters

Venues are among the places cochlear implant users find hardest. In a 2025 academic questionnaire study (no funding declared in the article; Europe PMC lists a US research grant), 37 adult implant users rated concerts and movie theatres the second hardest of 12 everyday settings (3.77 on a scale to 5) and places of worship and lectures 3.11, and reported more difficulty than 19 normal-hearing adults of similar age in all 12¹. In a US government-funded laboratory study, reverberation cut 11 implant users' word scores from 87% in quiet to 44% and 33% at reverberation times of 0.6 and 0.8 s, more than noise did²; a later academic study, linked to a Danish research grant and with one author affiliated with Widex, found a much smaller effect using simulations of real rooms, especially close to the talker (sample size unavailable in the abstract)³.

A venue system helps only if its sound reaches the implant. Direct reception from a hearing loop or a receiver's neckloop requires a telecoil in the processor or an accessory; HLAA also lists a loop receiver feeding a streamer as an indirect route⁴, and implants and hearing aids use Auracast's Standard Quality streams⁵. Processors differ: some have a telecoil built in and others need an accessory⁶, and in August 2026 the only implant processors a Swiss list marked as able to receive Auracast were two bone-conduction processors⁷. This question follows the implant user's whole path, from the venue system to the processor, and what is known about how well each route works; Are telecoils switched on and set up well enough for loops to work? and Which hearing devices can receive which systems? cover telecoil fitting and device lists in general.

What the evidence shows

The routes into a processor

Telecoils: built in, added on, switched on

• Built in on some processors, an accessory on others. The Center for Hearing Access lists a built-in telecoil in Advanced Bionics' Naída CI Marvel and MED-EL's Sonnet 2 and a telecoil program in Cochlear's Nucleus 8, and points to accessories or adaptors for Cochlear's Kanso and Baha 6 and MED-EL's Sonnet 3, Rondo 3 and Samba⁶. Cochlear (Manufacturer) describes the Nucleus 7's built-in telecoil as working with neck loops and with looped theatres, churches and meeting rooms¹⁴. Cochlear's January 2025 specification sheet for the Kanso 3 does not mention a telecoil and gives FM access through its Mini Microphone 2+ accessory¹⁵.
• MED-EL's accessory route. MED-EL (Manufacturer) wrote in July 2026 that its AudioLink XT accessory, which works directly with Sonnet 3 and through an adaptor with older processors, has an integrated telecoil that the original AudioLink lacks, and quoted a user who, at some meetings, plugs in "a personal telecoil loop supplied by the venue"¹⁶.
• Bone-conduction processors. A Swiss list shows the two bone-conduction processors it covers, Cochlear's Baha 7 and Osia 3, with telecoil access only through an accessory⁷; Cochlear's announcement of the Baha 7 does not mention a telecoil¹⁷.
• Switched on by the clinic. The built-in telecoil in the Naída CI Marvel works once the audiologist enables it, and the Center for Hearing Access says most users prefer a telecoil in the processor to one in an accessory because it is easier to use and to remember⁶. No cited source counts how many implant processors in use have a telecoil program switched on. In the second of Kochkin's surveys of loop users, funded by loop and hearing-technology companies, 21% of the 243 respondents used implants, and 35% of the whole sample said their hearing care professional had demonstrated the telecoil¹⁸.
• Advocates ask for both. The Center for Hearing Access says implants and bone-anchored devices need both a telecoil and Auracast built in¹⁹; EFHOH asks implant makers to keep telecoils for at least a decade and public procurement to require both^20,21.

Auracast, as the makers state it

• Cochlear (Manufacturer). Cochlear says a firmware update will let the Nucleus 8 connect to LE Audio devices "when the technology becomes available", without a date²². Its January 2025 Kanso 3 sheet lists the processor as "Ready for Bluetooth LE Audio – firmware updates required", with Auracast subject to third-party adoption¹⁵. In June 2025 Cochlear announced the Baha 7 as the first bone-conduction processor with LE Audio and Auracast, reaching venue streams "through an LE Audio-enabled smartphone", with some features left to a later firmware update¹⁷.
• MED-EL (Manufacturer). MED-EL said in April 2025 that its processors cannot receive Auracast directly, and that users can cable a third-party receiver into AudioLink or AudioLink XT¹¹. Its July 2026 post on AudioLink XT does not mention Auracast¹⁶.
• Other makers. The Swiss list covers only Cochlear's implants, so it supplies no Auracast status for Advanced Bionics or Oticon Medical processors⁷.
• The Swiss list. Pro Audito's list dated 31 August 2026 marks the Nucleus Nexa, Nucleus 8 and Kanso 3 as "ready" and the Baha 7 and Osia 3 as capable⁷. The Center for Hearing Access separates Auracast Ready devices, which have the hardware but cannot connect yet, from Auracast Enabled ones¹².
• Forecasts and demands. Swiss accessibility guidance in May 2025 expected Auracast in cochlear implants to take about five years or more, longer than in hearing aids²³. German associations of hard-of-hearing people and implant users ask that implant processors get Auracast as soon as possible and at no extra charge²⁴.
• Standard Quality streams. HLAA, the Center for Hearing Access and one transmitter maker state that implants receive the 16 and 24 kHz Standard Quality streams and not 48 kHz High Quality ones^5,25,26.

Receivers, streamers and neckloops

• A receiver for those without Auracast. HLAA says hearing devices without Auracast need a receiver with a neckloop or headphones⁵, and the Center for Hearing Access that telecoil users can reach Auracast through a neckloop or ear hooks¹². HLAA notes that streamers add latency⁴.
• Neckloop or cable. With personal FM receivers, a University of North Texas study of nine users (seven in its second experiment; funder unavailable in the abstract) found a neckloop into the processor's telecoil better than a cabled receiver at the same gain, with no significant difference once each was set to its best gain⁹, while a Hearts for Hearing study (15 and 16 adults in its two experiments; funder unavailable in the abstract) found the cabled receiver better in noise with two Cochlear processor models¹⁰. In a third, University of North Texas study (funder unavailable in the abstract), 14 implant users understood speech in noise significantly better with a neck-loop FM receiver than with the implant alone²⁷. All three used personal receivers and are cited here as evidence about the route into the processor.
• The routes on the bench. In an Amsterdam UMC study (no funder named and no conflicts reported), sound reaching a Nucleus 7 through a telecoil and neckloop, Bluetooth and two remote-microphone accessories differed from loudspeaker sound by generally under 5 dB above 500 Hz, more in some low-frequency bands, and 20 normal-hearing listeners' speech-in-noise thresholds through the processor's monitor output did not differ significantly between routes. The neckloop's position changed the volume markedly, and the authors note the telecoil route's sensitivity to magnetic interference. This laboratory study of personal devices informs the input path; it did not test implant users or a venue system. The frequency-response curves were aligned at 1 kHz, so they do not compare absolute output levels²⁸.
• Neckloop quality. In the independent Swiss hearing-loss association Pro Audito's bench test of six neckloops on a dummy head, many lost the 2 to 4 kHz range that matters most for speech²⁹.
• Interference and failures. Telecoils pick up magnetic interference, which also reaches neckloop users of FM and infrared⁸; one implant user in Kochkin's survey reported a "chainsaw like" noise through the telecoil¹⁸. In a US government-funded 2005 survey of 423 self-selected hearing aid and implant users, 77% of the 276 who had borrowed a venue receiver had at least sometimes found one that would not work with their hearing aid or implant³⁰.

How well: understanding with a direct input

• Loops: hearing aid studies only. The loop studies cited here tested hearing aid users: word scores in noise rose from 25% to 79% in a study of 12 older adults (no financial support declared; a loop maker lent the meter; two participants used loop receivers)³¹, and sentence scores from 14% to 88% at -3 dB signal-to-noise ratio among 26 hearing aid users in another, funded by a hearing aid maker, a loop maker and a loop advocate's family foundation³². No study found for this question measured implant users' understanding with an installed loop, and none with infrared.
• FM (personal devices, as evidence about the input path). In Hey et al.'s academic study (full-text funding statement unavailable), 17 implant users' median speech reception threshold in a simulated classroom was 15 dB better with FM at a 3:1 mix when the talker wore the transmitter³³. In Wolfe and Schafer's Hearts for Hearing study (funder unavailable in the abstract), FM significantly improved 12 implant users' recognition in noise and of soft speech³⁴, and neck-loop FM receivers improved 14 users' recognition in noise²⁷.
• Streaming (a personal TV streamer). In a University of Tennessee study (funding statement unavailable in the abstract), 16 implant users understood speech in noise best through the streamer with the processor microphones muted, next with them turned down by 6 dB, and worst with the implant alone³⁵.
• Reverberation. No cited study tested an assistive system with implant users in a reverberant room; the two cited here tested processors without one and differ on how much reverberation costs^2,3.
• Auracast in the field. In RNID's March 2026 station test, eight hearing aid users and two implant users, seven of the ten with loaned neckloop receivers, found announcements clearer with Auracast. The report credits Motability Foundation funding; a separate July 2025 announcement says the manufacturer Ampetronic commissioned RNID trials at the station, without establishing whether it refers to this test³⁶. An Australian Government-funded project undertaken by La Trobe University, NEC Australia and Get Skilled Access reported 19 sessions with a mixed sample including implant users (the final report does not give a participant total). Participants described Auracast as clearer than loops they had used before³⁷. Both tests were qualitative and measured no speech scores^36,37.

Mixing the stream with the processor microphone

• Defaults differ. Cochlear (Manufacturer) gives the Nucleus 7's default accessory mix as 2:1 for adults, which turns the processor microphone down by 6 dB, and 1:1 for children; clinicians can set anything from 1:1 to 6:1 or accessory or telecoil input only, and a user's own changes last until the processor is switched off¹⁴. The Center for Hearing Access describes 50/50 to hear a neighbour while listening to the loop and telecoil only to cut background sound, and notes that some apps let users set the mix⁶. MED-EL's AudioStream adapter does not let users change the mix or switch the processor microphone off²⁸.
• More stream helps the talker on the system. Hey et al. found understanding rose with the FM share when the talker wore the transmitter, and did not change for a talker without it³³. Wolfe and Schafer found that turning the microphone down by 10 dB (30/70) made soft speech not directed to the transmitter harder to understand, with no gain in noise, and recommend 50/50³⁴. With a TV streamer, muting the microphones gave the best understanding and clarity in noise, and listeners preferred both streaming settings to the implant alone in noise³⁵.
• Hearing the room as well. RNID's participants whose devices had a telecoil-plus-microphone setting found it easier to balance the stream with surrounding sound³⁶. Kaufmann et al. list a program that mixes the assistive signal with the device's microphones as a way to hear the room, and note that a listener who hears two copies, one delayed against the other, perceives a distorted signal³⁸; a bench study of two hearing-aid remote microphones found comb-filter ripples when mixing at similar gain. Its authors state no external research funding; IRCCS Burlo Garofolo funded the publication charge, and two authors worked for Acustica Caregnato. This personal-device study informs the shared mixing path; it did not test implant users or venue systems³⁹. The Center for Hearing Access says hearing devices cannot use a "Mic + Wi-Fi" setting¹³.

What implant users report

• Mixed samples, pooled results. Implant users made up 22% of the 423 respondents in the US government-funded 2005 survey of self-selected assistive listening users³⁰, 34% and 21% in Kochkin's manufacturer-funded surveys of 866 and 243 self-selected loop users, against fewer than 1% of US hearing device users in a 2009 industry survey¹⁸, and nearly 23% in the CCAA hearing-loss advocates' survey of 1,519 self-selected respondents, published in 2024, which counted cochlear and bone-anchored implants (funding not stated)⁴⁰. None of the three gives implant users' results separately. Across all respondents in Kochkin's first survey, the mean rating of their hearing device rose from 4.9 without a loop to 8.7 in one¹⁸.
• Focused implant studies. The 2025 questionnaire compared implant users with normal-hearing adults and asked about everyday communication difficulty, without asking about assistive listening¹. In the neck-loop FM trial, ratings and journals showed improvements in noisy places and at a distance from the talker²⁷.

Where sources disagree

Pro Audito marks the Kanso 3 as having a telecoil⁷, while Cochlear's specification sheet does not mention one and gives FM access through the Mini Microphone 2+¹⁵, and the Center for Hearing Access points Kanso users to the Mini Microphone 2+ telecoil⁶. The specification sheet's silence does not by itself establish whether the Kanso 3 has a built-in telecoil¹⁵. The Center also opens its page by saying all implants have telecoils, while its own list shows several that rely on accessories⁶.

With personal FM receivers, one study found better results from a neckloop at equal gain, with no significant difference when each receiver used its best gain⁹ and another found the cabled receiver better in noise¹⁰.

On the mix, Wolfe and Schafer recommend equal weighting³⁴, Cochlear's adult default turns the processor microphone down by 6 dB¹⁴, Hey et al. found no single setting best for both of their situations³³, and muting the microphones gave the best understanding with a TV streamer³⁵. The studies differ in what listeners needed to hear: a talker on the system, soft speech off it, or a television^33,34,35.

On reverberation, one study found it harmed implant users more than noise², and another, using simulations of real rooms, found its effect much smaller than earlier work suggested, especially close to the talker³.

On Auracast timing, Cochlear calls its cochlear implant processors ready without giving a date^22,15, and Swiss guidance expected about five years or more²³. The Swiss list marks the Baha 7 as capable⁷, while Cochlear's own announcement leaves some LE Audio features to a later firmware update¹⁷.

What would settle it

Controlled studies with cochlear and bone-conduction implant users in installed loops, infrared and Auracast systems in real, reverberant venues, comparing built-in telecoils, accessories, neckloops and cabled receivers, with the processor microphone at several mixes. The cited studies used personal FM and a TV streamer in controlled tests, with the neckloop FM study also collecting everyday ratings and journals during a trial period^33,34,35,27, or were qualitative field tests^36,37.

A dated list, confirmed by each maker, of which implant processors have a built-in telecoil and working Auracast, together with audits of whether telecoil programs are switched on; the cited lists disagree or cover one maker's implants^7,6,15.

Surveys that report implant users' results separately from hearing aid users'^18,30,40, and measurements of implant processors' telecoil response in a loop field and with common neckloops: the bench data found cover one processor^28,29.

Planning while it is open

• Hearing professionals: check that the processor's telecoil is enabled, or that an accessory provides one, and set the microphone and telecoil mix⁶.
• Set the mix for the listening situation: with equal weighting, soft speech not directed to the transmitter was understood better than with the microphone turned down by 10 dB in one study³⁴, and more weight on the stream helped only the talker on the system in another³³. Counsel users on adjusting the microphone settings when streaming³⁵, and reprogramme the default if a user keeps changing it¹⁴.
• Venues: keep a Standard Quality Auracast stream on, because implants do not receive High Quality-only broadcasts^5,25.
• Venues: keep receivers with neckloops for listeners whose processors cannot receive Auracast^5,24, and choose neckloops with a measured, flat high-frequency response²⁹.
• Venues with loops: keep them working while Auracast reaches implants. The German associations call induction the established standard for people with severe hearing loss and ask that it stay available, and EFHOH holds that telecoil access to loops is needed in Europe for at least 10 to 15 years^24,20.
• Listeners choosing a processor: advocates advise one with both a telecoil and Auracast^19,41, and an Auracast Ready device needs the enabling firmware as well as its hardware before it can connect¹².

Sources

1. Real-world Speech Communication Experiences of Cochlear Implant Users. Titanji BN, Moberly AC, Tamati TN. Otology & Neurotology Open 5(4), 17 December 2025. Independent (Meharry Medical College and Vanderbilt University Medical Center; the article declares no funding sources, while Europe PMC links it to NIDCD grant R21 DC019382; one author declares roles with Otologic Technologies and paid consulting for Amgen) ↩︎ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12737855/
2. The combined effects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners. Hazrati O, Loizou PC. International Journal of Audiology 51(6):437-443, 22 February 2012. Independent (University of Texas at Dallas; funded by the US National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, grant R01 DC010494; the authors report no conflicts of interest) ↩︎ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3733354/
3. The impact of reverberation on speech intelligibility in cochlear implant recipients. Kressner AA, Westermann A, Buchholz JM. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 144(2):1113, August 2018. Independent (Technical University of Denmark and Macquarie University; Europe PMC lists a grant from the Danish Council for Independent Research, Technology and Production, DFF-5054-00072; one of the three authors is listed at the hearing aid maker Widex) ↩︎ https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5051640
4. Coupling Options: Ways to Connect to Assistive Listening System Audio. Kaneb A (credited on the chart). Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA), 2026. Nonprofit advocacy (Hearing Loss Association of America, a US consumer organisation for people with hearing loss; the chart is credited to Andrea Kaneb and names no funder) ↩︎ https://www.hearingloss.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/advocacy-resources/hlaa-coupling-options-als-chart.pdf
5. Auracast Systems (technology and accessibility page). Hearing Loss Association of America. Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA), 28 September 2026. Nonprofit advocacy (Hearing Loss Association of America, a US consumer organisation for people with hearing loss; its site asks for memberships and donations and lists corporate partners and advertising) ↩︎ https://www.hearingloss.org/technology-and-accessibility/auracast/
6. Using Telecoils in Your Cochlear Implant & Bone Anchored Devices. Center for Hearing Access (The John G. Shedd Institute). Center for Hearing Access, undated (read 9 October 2026). Nonprofit advocacy (Center for Hearing Access, a 501(c)(3) advocacy and education initiative of The John G. Shedd Institute for the Arts, founded in 2024; it states that it accepts no donations from hearing-related vendors) ↩︎ https://centerforhearingaccess.org/how-use-telecoils-ci/
7. Hearing aids and implants with Auracast function (status 31 August 2026). Pro Audito Schweiz. Pro Audito Schweiz (in German), 31 August 2026. Nonprofit advocacy (Pro Audito Schweiz, Swiss hearing-loss association) ↩︎ https://pro-audito.ch/wp-content/uploads/Hoersysteme_mit_Auracast_260831.pdf
8. Comparison of Large Area Assistive Listening Systems. Compton-Conley C. Hearing Loss Association of America (reprint), 2015. Nonprofit advocacy (reprinted by HLAA with the contact address of its Get in the Hearing Loop program; written by Cynthia Compton-Conley, PhD, of Gallaudet University; who paid for the original is not stated) ↩︎ https://www.hearingloss.org/wp-content/uploads/comparison-of-large-area-assistive-listening-systems.pdf
9. Electromagnetic versus Electrical Coupling of Personal Frequency Modulation (FM) Receivers to Cochlear Implant Sound Processors. Schafer EC, Romine D, Musgrave E, Momin S, Huynh C. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 24(10):927-940, November 2013. Independent (Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of North Texas; PubMed tags the study as having non-US-government research support without naming it; the FM receivers tested were Oticon's) ↩︎ https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.3766/jaaa.24.10.5
10. Effects of Input Processing and Type of Personal Frequency Modulation System on Speech-Recognition Performance of Adults With Cochlear Implants. Wolfe J, Schafer E, Parkinson A, John A, Hudson M, Wheeler J, Mucci A. Ear and Hearing 34(1):52-62 (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins), January 2013. Independent (first author at Hearts for Hearing, Oklahoma City, where participants were recruited; PubMed tags the study as having non-US-government research support without naming it; the other authors' affiliations and any funding statement are in the paywalled full text, which was not read; the processors tested were Cochlear's) ↩︎ https://www.ovid.com/jnls/ear-hearing/abstract/10.1097/aud.0b013e3182611982~effects-of-input-processing-and-type-of-personal-frequency
11. Can Cochlear Implants Receive Auracast Broadcasts?. MED-EL. The MED-EL Blog, 2 April 2025. Manufacturer (MED-EL) ↩︎ https://blog.medel.com/technology/can-cochlear-implants-receive-auracast-broadcasts/
12. "Worldwide Access" hearing instruments list. Center for Hearing Access (The John G. Shedd Institute). Center for Hearing Access, 11 September 2026. Nonprofit advocacy (Center for Hearing Access, an initiative of The John G. Shedd Institute for the Arts; it states that it accepts no donations from hearing-related vendors) ↩︎ https://centerforhearingaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/Worldwide-Access-Hearing-Instruments-List.pdf
13. Audio Over Wi-Fi Assistive Listening System. Center for Hearing Access. Center for Hearing Access, The John G. Shedd Institute for the Arts, undated (read 9 October 2026). Nonprofit advocacy (Center for Hearing Access, an initiative of The John G. Shedd Institute for the Arts; it asks for donations and states that it accepts none from hearing-related vendors) ↩︎ https://centerforhearingaccess.org/wi-fi/
14. Clinical Quick Tips: A closer look at accessory mixing in the Nucleus 7 Sound Processor. Catlett D. Cochlear Professional News (Cochlear Americas), 26 December 2017. Manufacturer (Cochlear; written by Dave Catlett, AuD, a regional clinical training manager at Cochlear Americas) ↩︎ https://pronews.cochlear.com/clinical-quick-tips-accessory-mixing-nucleus-7-sound-processor/
15. Kanso 3 Sound Processor (CP1170): technical specifications. Cochlear. Cochlear (specification sheet FUN5422 ISS1, Cochlear Americas), January 2025. Manufacturer (Cochlear) ↩︎ https://assets.cochlear.com/api/public/content/FUN5422-Kanso-3-Tech-Specs-Sheet.pdf
16. What Is AudioLink XT and How Is It Different From AudioLink?. MED-EL. The MED-EL Blog, 15 July 2026. Manufacturer (MED-EL) ↩︎ https://blog.medel.com/technology/what-is-audiolink-xt-and-how-is-it-different-from-audiolink/
17. Cochlear introduces the Baha 7 Sound Processor and Baha SoundBand. Cochlear. Cochlear Professional News (Cochlear Americas), 2 June 2025. Manufacturer (Cochlear) ↩︎ https://pronews.cochlear.com/cochlear-introduces-the-baha-7-sound-processor-and-baha-soundband/
18. Consumer Perceptions of the Impact of Inductively Looped Venues on the Utility of Their Hearing Devices. Kochkin S, Sterkens J, Compton-Conley C, Beck DL, Taylor B, Kricos P, Caccavo M, Holmes A, Powers TA. Hearing Review (October 2014 issue), 24 September 2014. Manufacturer (paid for by grants from Etymotic Research, Contacta, Listen Technologies, IntriCon and Univox by Edin, which the acknowledgments describe as including two hearing loop makers, an assistive listening company and two hearing-device technology makers; co-author Juliëtte Sterkens runs the Loop Wisconsin advocacy blog, one of the recruitment channels. The article prints no affiliations; from other sources, co-author Douglas L. Beck worked for the hearing-aid maker Oticon, joining as director of professional relations in 2005 (AudiologyOnline, 20 August 2005) and named director of academic sciences in 2016 (Hearing Review, 6 April 2016), and co-author Thomas A. Powers was vice-president of audiology at the hearing-aid maker Siemens Hearing Instruments (Hearing Review, 19 September 2013) and later a vice-president of its successor, Sivantos (Better Hearing Institute biography)) ↩︎ https://hearingreview.com/hearing-products/implants-bone-conduction/cochlear-implants/consumer-perceptions-impact-inductively-looped-venues-utility-hearing-devices
19. ADA Standards for Assistive Listening Systems. Center for Hearing Access. Center for Hearing Access, The John G. Shedd Institute for the Arts, undated (read 9 October 2026). Nonprofit advocacy (Center for Hearing Access, an initiative of The John G. Shedd Institute for the Arts; it states that it accepts no donations from hearing-related vendors) ↩︎ https://centerforhearingaccess.org/ada-standards/
20. Position statement on Auracast and telecoils. European Federation of Hard of Hearing People (EFHOH). EFHOH, 18 October 2024. Nonprofit advocacy (European federation; EFHOH states that its 2024-2026 publications are co-funded by the EU CERV programme) ↩︎ https://efhoh.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/EFHOH-position-statement-on-concerns-about-withdrawal-from-telecoils-FINAL97.pdf
21. Telecoil and Auracast functionalities should be standard requirements for hearing aids and other hearing devices eligible for public health procurement. European Federation of Hard of Hearing People (EFHOH). EFHOH (position adopted by its members at the 2026 Annual General Meeting), 18 April 2026. Nonprofit advocacy (European federation; EFHOH states that its 2024-2026 publications are co-funded by the EU CERV programme) ↩︎ https://efhoh.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/EFHOH-Motion-Telecoil-and-Auracast-functionalities.pdf
22. Nucleus 8 Sound Processor (product page). Cochlear. Cochlear US website, undated (read 9 October 2026). Manufacturer (Cochlear) ↩︎ https://www.cochlear.com/us/en/home/products-and-accessories/cochlear-nucleus-system/nucleus-sound-processors/nucleus-8
23. Höranlagen heute und morgen. Was ändert sich mit der neuen Technologie Auracast? (Hearing systems today and tomorrow: what changes with Auracast?). Hindernisfreie Architektur, the Swiss national centre for barrier-free architecture, with recommendations from Pro Audito Schweiz. hindernisfreie-architektur.ch (in German), 19 May 2025. Nonprofit advocacy (donation-funded Swiss specialist centre) ↩︎ https://hindernisfreie-architektur.ch/fachinformation/hoeranlagen-heute-und-morgen-was-aendert-sich-mit-der-neuen-technologie-auracast/
24. Gemeinsames Positionspapier zu Auracast (Joint position paper on Auracast). Deutscher Hörverband, Deutsche Cochlea Implantat Gesellschaft and Deutscher Schwerhörigenbund. Deutscher Schwerhörigenbund (in German), July 2026. Nonprofit advocacy (three German self-help associations of people with hearing loss and cochlear implant users) ↩︎ https://schwerhoerigen-netz.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/DHVDSBDCIG_Positionspapier_Auracast.pdf
25. Assistive Listening Systems Quick Guide. Center for Hearing Access (reviewed by Juliette Sterkens, AuD). Center for Hearing Access, The John G. Shedd Institute, 29 October 2025. Nonprofit advocacy (Center for Hearing Access, an initiative of The John G. Shedd Institute for the Arts; it states that it accepts no donations from hearing-related vendors) ↩︎ https://centerforhearingaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/Assistive-Listening-Systems-Quick-Guide.pdf
26. Bettear CASTER user manual (firmware 1.0.8). Bettear. Bettear; copy hosted by the distributor Univox, 2026. Manufacturer (Bettear) ↩︎ https://univox.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/01/B-CASTER-User-Manual-1.0.8.pdf
27. Speech recognition and subjective perceptions of neck-loop FM receivers with cochlear implants. Schafer EC, Huynh C, Romine D, Jimenez R. American Journal of Audiology 22(1):53-64, June 2013. Independent (University of North Texas; PubMed tags the study as having non-US-government research support without naming it; the full text, with any funding statement, could not be read) ↩︎ https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2012/11-0032)
28. Remote self-testing for adult cochlear implant users: the effect of wireless streaming on speech recognition in noise. Rootlieb JM, Polspoel S, Brienesse P, Smits C. International Journal of Audiology 64(4):314-319 (2025), 5 August 2024. Independent (Amsterdam UMC; no funder is named and the authors report no conflict of interest) ↩︎ https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2024.2382201
29. Which inductive neck loops are suitable for Auracast/FM/IR receivers?. Pro Audito Schweiz. Pro Audito Schweiz; English reprint by the Center for Hearing Access, 8 September 2026. Independent (Pro Audito Schweiz, Swiss hearing-loss association) ↩︎ https://centerforhearingaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/Pro-Audito-Schweiz-Which-inductive-neck-loops-are-suitable-for-AuracastFMIR-receivers.pdf
30. An Internet Survey of Individuals With Hearing Loss Regarding Assistive Listening Devices. Harkins J, Tucker P. Trends in Amplification 11(2):91-100 (SAGE), June 2007. Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) ↩︎ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4111414/
31. Evaluation of Speech Perception via the Use of Hearing Loops and Telecoils. Alfakir R, Holmes AE, Kricos PB, Gaeta L, Martin S. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine 1:2333721415591935 (SAGE), 8 July 2015. Independent (University of Florida and University of Oklahoma; the authors report no financial support and no conflicts of interest; Contacta, a loop maker, lent the field strength meter) ↩︎ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5119799/
32. Effects of Hearing Loop Systems on Speech Understanding and Sound Quality of Normal-hearing Listeners and Hearing Aid Users. Magann Faivre R, Ismail F, Sterkens J, Thunder T, Chung K. Hearing Review 23(8):28, 18 July 2016. Manufacturer (the authors state the research was funded by GN ReSound, a hearing aid maker, and Listen Technologies, an assistive listening and loop maker, together with the David & Carol Myers Foundation, the family foundation of loop advocate David Myers; study run at Northern Illinois University; co-author Juliëtte Sterkens is a hearing loop advocate whose outreach that foundation funds) ↩︎ https://hearingreview.com/hearing-products/testing-equipment/effects-hearing-loop-systems-speech-understanding-sound-quality-normal-hearing-listeners-hearing-aid-users
33. Untersuchungen zum Einfluss des Mischungsverhältnisses der FM-Anlage auf das Sprachverständnis im Störschall bei CI-Patienten (Influence of an FM system's mixing ratio on speech understanding in noise in cochlear implant patients). Hey M, Anft D, Hocke T, Scholz G, Hessel H, Begall K. Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie 88(5):315-321 (Thieme; in German), May 2009. Independent (first author at the ENT department of AMEOS Klinikum St. Salvator, Halberstadt; the co-authors' affiliations and any funding statement are in the German full text, which could not be read; the implants were Cochlear's and the FM system Phonak's) ↩︎ https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1100382
34. Optimizing the benefit of sound processors coupled to personal FM systems. Wolfe J, Schafer EC. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 19(8):585-594, September 2008. Independent (first author at the Hearts for Hearing Foundation, Oklahoma City; PubMed tags the study as having non-US-government research support without naming it; the full text, with any funding statement, could not be read; the processors tested were Advanced Bionics') ↩︎ https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.19.8.2
35. Effectiveness of Television Streaming on Cochlear Implant User Performance and Satisfaction in Quiet and in Noise. Plyler PN, Wade M, Dimlich A, Hausladen J, Humphrey E. American Journal of Audiology 34(2):270-280, 13 March 2025. Independent (Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center; the full text, with any funding or conflict-of-interest statement, could not be read) ↩︎ https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00204
36. Clear Signals: improving transport accessibility for deaf people and people with hearing loss. RNID. RNID (Royal National Institute for Deaf People), 22 September 2026. Independent (RNID survey and concept test; report funded by the Motability Foundation; Ampetronic, which installed the station's transmitters, announced in July 2025 that it commissioned RNID trials there, but the read sources do not establish whether those are the March 2026 concept test) ↩︎ https://rnid.org.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-influencing/clear-signals-improving-transport-accessibility/
37. Accelerating the adoption of Auracast: everyone should hear what matters (final report, iMOVE project 6-057 IEP). La Trobe University, NEC Australia and Get Skilled Access. iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre, 4 September 2026. Independent (undertaken by La Trobe University, NEC Australia and Get Skilled Access; funded by the Australian Government through the iMOVE Cooperative Research Centre's Impact Extension Program) ↩︎ https://imoveaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Accelerating-the-adoption-of-Auracast-everyone-should-hear-what-matters-Final-report.pdf
38. Requirements for mass adoption of assistive listening technology by the general public. Kaufmann TB, Foroogozar M, Liss J, Berisha V. ICASSP 2023 Workshops, IEEE (arXiv 2303.02523), 3 May 2023. Independent (Arizona State University) ↩︎ https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.02523
39. Time delay and frequency analysis of remote microphones. Andreatta E, Caregnato I, Selmo A, Gulli A, Onofrei MG, Orzan E. Audiology Research 15(5):123, 25 September 2025. Independent (authors report no external research funding; IRCCS Burlo Garofolo paid the publication charge through Ricerca Corrente RC 05/21); two authors employed by Acustica Caregnato ↩︎ https://www.mdpi.com/2039-4349/15/5/123
40. Consumer use of and preferences for assistive communication technology in public places. Committee for Communication Access in America (Frazier SO, Bailey A, Cadwell B, Clifford C, Liebe K, Myers D, Sterkens J). Committee for Communication Access in America, 8 January 2024. Nonprofit advocacy (an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates, chaired by Stephen O. Frazier (Loop New Mexico; a founding member of HLAA's Get in the Hearing Loop initiative), the report's correspondence author; funding not stated; data collected and analysed by the Frost Center for Data and Social Research at Hope College. The committee's site lists David Myers (founder of hearingloop.org) and Juliette Sterkens (HLAA hearing loop advocate) among its members, with Abram Bailey (founder of HearingTracker), Blake Cadwell (founder and CEO of Soundly), Kevin Liebe (hearinghealthmatters.org) and Carol Clifford (audiologist, former ReSound training director)) ↩︎ https://www.ccaa.name/Report_Final_1-12-24.pdf
41. A Telecoil is One of the Best Hearing Aid Features. Many Still Aren't Using It.. Roberts C. Consumer Reports, 7 May 2026. Independent (Consumer Reports, a nonprofit consumer organisation; article by Catherine Roberts, a health and science journalist on its staff, quoting loop advocates from the Center for Hearing Access and HLAA and an assistive listening installer) ↩︎ https://www.consumerreports.org/health/hearing-aids/one-of-best-hearing-aid-features-many-still-arent-using-a4102935824/

Change log

• 10 October 2026Published with 41 sources.
• 13 October 2026Clarified input routes, specification limits, study samples and funding, and the distinction between speech tests and field reports.
• 13 October 2026Independent audit added the RNID device breakdown and corrected research funding, project attribution and survey dating.

Cite this question

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, or see how suggestions are handled.