What do listeners prefer, and how often do they use venue systems?

Why it matters

A venue's system helps only the people who use it. In the CCAA survey of 1,519 self-selected respondents with hearing loss or other hearing-related conditions, run by hearing-loss advocates with funding unstated, 62% said they seldom or never find hearing accommodations in public venues, and 47% avoid events they know have none¹. Loop advocates give listener preference as a reason to choose loops^2,3. Cost and installation effort differ as well: one guide lists FM as easy to install, with the lowest installation cost⁴. These preference figures come from self-selected samples, and the guide describes costs without surveying buyers^1,5,4.

What the evidence shows

• Loop users prefer loops to borrowed receivers (maker-funded survey). Kochkin et al. ran two online surveys of hearing-aid and cochlear-implant users who had used a loop, paid for by grants from Etymotic Research, Contacta, Listen Technologies, IntriCon and Univox, two of them hearing loop makers⁵. Of 243 respondents to the second survey, 81% chose a loop with their own hearing device as their preferred large-venue system over FM or infrared with a neckloop or a headset; among the 125 who had used all three, 88% chose the loop⁵. In the first survey (866 responses), respondents rated their hearing device 4.9 out of 10 on average without a loop and 8.7 in one⁵.
• Who answered it. Respondents were recruited through HLAA, co-author Juliëtte Sterkens' Loop Wisconsin blog, other hearing-loss sites and social media, under the title "Get in the Hearing Loop"; most were HLAA members, all had already used a loop, and they had far more profound hearing loss than typical hearing-device users⁵. The authors call it a convenience sample, say that people against loops or in favour of other wireless systems may not have responded, and write that the results could differ for milder losses or for people exposed to other wireless technologies⁵. The choice offered no Bluetooth or Wi-Fi option and counted only systems each respondent had used; the method section describes the ranking as of technologies used while watching TV, while the results present it as large venues, and its figures for the 125 respondents who had used all three systems (88%, 12.8% and 4.8%) add up to more than 100%⁵.
• Loops over infrared or FM (small UK survey by a social enterprise; funder and method not published). A trade magazine reported in 2016 that 77% of 143 people with mild to profound hearing loss, surveyed by Ideas for Ears, a social enterprise, about theatres and concerts, preferred an induction loop to an infrared or FM system⁶. The report gives no method, recruitment, dates or question wording, does not say who paid for the survey, and the full survey could not be found⁶. Asked what would improve their visits, respondents chose less background music during speech (73%), an assistive listening system (66%), clear speech (65%) and captions (64%), and named staff speaking clearly and facing them as the change that would make the greatest single difference⁶.
• Captions first, then loops (larger self-selected survey). The Committee for Communication Access in America, a committee of hearing-loss advocates, among them the loop advocates Stephen O. Frazier (its chair), Juliëtte Sterkens and David Myers, surveyed 1,519 self-selected respondents recruited through HearingTracker, the Hearing Health Foundation, Soundly and other hearing-loss channels; its funding is not stated¹. Nearly 80% were seniors, 66% reported severe-to-profound loss and 23% had an implant¹. The questionnaire was online from 5 to 24 September 2023⁷. The report states that over 60% preferred loops among five assistive listening technologies (the counts below give 187 of 312, 60%), and that captions were the first choice overall¹. Its one question comparing technologies asked which single system respondents would recommend for their city council chamber: of 1,335 answers, 492 chose captions, 187 a loop, 61 Wi-Fi audio, 40 FM/RF, 13 a wired system and 11 infrared, and 531 did not feel informed enough to choose⁷. Auracast was not an option⁷.
• Most telecoil users use loops; a minority borrow receivers (CCAA survey). In the survey's published response counts, 354 of 961 respondents always or usually borrow a receiver and headset where a venue's system needs one, and 342 of 880 telecoil users always or usually borrow a receiver and neckloop; 383 and 350 never do⁷. Of 719 telecoil users who go to looped venues, 496 listen through the telecoil always or usually and 103 never⁷. The report gives these as 37%, 39% and 69% and describes the last as telecoil users who always use the loop; in the counts, 367 of the 719 (51%) always do^1,7.
• Three in ten never used available systems (2013 survey). In a 2013 convenience sample of 180 people with hearing loss, funded by a US federal grant and designed to test demand for an app-based system, 66% said assistive listening is rarely provided at the events they attend; where it was, 36% often used it, 34% sometimes and 30% never, and 37% of users were unsatisfied⁸. It did not ask which technology the venues used⁸.
• Most systems respondents found were FM, and complaints are common. CCAA respondents who found an audio system found FM 51% of the time, a loop 27% and infrared 14%¹. Their complaints included untrained staff, dead batteries, missing signs, loops with dead spots, unhygienic headsets, too few receivers, and neckloops that did not work or were not offered¹. Kochkin's respondents named loops left switched off, uneven loop signals and electrical buzzing⁵. In 2009, RNID volunteers reported that the loop was not working properly in nearly half of about 500 reports on UK businesses, without a test protocol⁹. Listing infrared's drawbacks for users, a user advocacy organisation writes that users "lose dignity by “outing” their disability" and that borrowing and returning equipment is inconvenient¹⁰.
• A loop beats the hearing aid's own microphones (three studies). In a lecture-hall study funded by the hearing-aid maker GN ReSound, the assistive listening maker Listen Technologies and the David & Carol Myers Foundation, all but one of 71 participants (26 hearing-aid users and 45 normal-hearing listeners) preferred listening with the loop on, and hearing-aid users' sentence scores at -3 dB SNR rose from 14% to 88%¹¹. An independent study of 12 older hearing-aid users, whose authors report no financial support and a field meter lent by loop maker Contacta, found mean word scores in noise of 25% on the microphone and 79% on the telecoil; two participants used a loop receiver because their hearing aids had no telecoil option, and only seven returned for the second session¹². In an independent Polish university study funded by Poland's National Science Centre and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism, a loop calibrated to IEC 60118-4 significantly improved speech intelligibility for 22 hearing-aid users in a meeting room and in a church with about 5 s of reverberation, and the share of everyday listening problems they reported on a questionnaire fell by more than 62 percentage points on average¹³. All three compare a loop with the hearing aid's own microphones; none compares loops with other systems^11,12,13. In a concert study supported by AGE-WELL Canada with hearing aids and fittings provided by Sonova Canada, 20 adults used study hearing aids with telecoils and eight used their own devices without telecoils. The stage-microphone loop feed did not significantly improve music ratings over no feed, and the balcony-microphone feed was rated worse; participants found spoken introductions hard to follow without an assistive feed¹⁴.
• Older comparisons found small differences between loops, FM and infrared. In a 1986 classroom study indexed by PubMed as supported by a US NIH/NINDS grant (participant count absent from the available abstract), a loop, an FM system and an infrared system all gave better word scores than a public-address system. This provides evidence about the shared audio path in a room¹⁵. A government-funded 1999 review of earlier studies found small differences between the three¹⁶. A 2006 federal advisory committee states that the three give the same understanding when they are of good quality, citing no study¹⁷.
• Listeners prefer Auracast's sound to a loop's (maker study). In a single-blind GN Hearing study at its own premises, with 18 listeners with mild to moderate hearing loss and 18 normal-hearing listeners, the group with hearing loss preferred Auracast to a perimeter loop in 76% of trials and rated its sound 7.9 against 5.9 out of 10; the telecoil path lost low frequencies below about 300 Hz¹⁸. The study used one room and one hearing-aid model, with the hearing-aid microphones off, and collected ratings rather than speech scores¹⁸. In an independent 2024 Swiss user trial run by Pro Audito with ETH Zurich students, 23 participants rated Auracast's speech quality as equal to or better than a loop's (the published summary does not say how many took part in that test), while the testers found loops simpler to use because Auracast then needed a smartphone¹⁹.
• Interest in Auracast, but few can use it yet. In RNID's 2026 UK transport report funded by the Motability Foundation, a survey of 1,762 people found that 47% chose audio announcements sent directly to hearing devices as an improvement, the fourth most chosen; RNID notes that the technology is unfamiliar to most people²⁰. In its March 2026 station test, most of ten hearing-device users could not understand the announcements without Auracast and found them clearer with it, and nine needed a loaned phone or receiver²⁰. The Center for Hearing Access estimates that 95% of users do not yet have hearing instruments with Auracast²¹ and states that fewer than 2% of facilities have installed it²².
• Wi-Fi delay bothered half of those who rated it (CCAA survey). In the CCAA survey, 217 of 1,321 respondents had used an audio-over-Wi-Fi system, and 132 of the 251 who rated its delay found it distracting or objectionable^7,1. In 2013, 86% of smartphone users said they would use an assistive listening app if one existed, in a survey designed to test demand for one⁸. The Center for Hearing Access and IAHA, an industry association, both say no peer-reviewed studies are available on how audio over Wi-Fi works for people with hearing loss^23,24. In the independent Pew Research Center’s 2025 survey of 5,022 US adults, 78% of those aged 65 and older owned a smartphone²⁵.
• Few owners know they have a telecoil; fewer new models include one. In the independent consumer organisation Consumer Reports’ 2023 member survey, 10% of respondents with prescription hearing aids reported a telecoil; the cited article gives no sample size for that figure. The article’s figures from the Consumer’s Guide to Hearing Aids for listed prescription models with a manual telecoil fell from 79% in 2016 to 59% in 2026²⁶. In the manufacturers’ associations’ EuroTrak UK 2025 survey, 11% of 718 owners reported a telecoil and 63% were unsure; in the US hearing aid industry’s MarkeTrak 2022 survey, 33% of 815 recent owners reported one^27,28. UK telecoil users (68 respondents) use it most in theatres or auditoriums (38%), schools or universities (31%) and churches (31%)²⁷. In MarkeTrak 2022, the US hearing aid industry's survey, of owners who had each feature, 6% (fitted in person or remotely) named the telecoil among the three features that most improved their listening, against 23% and 13% for direct smartphone streaming²⁸. Among CCAA respondents who answered yes or no, 73% called a telecoil a must-have for their next hearing aids and 96% Bluetooth¹. Only 35% of the 243 respondents to Kochkin’s second survey said their hearing care professional had demonstrated the telecoil⁵.
• Buyers' reasons come from guides, not surveys. A guide by Cynthia Compton-Conley, distributed by HLAA's loop programme, lists FM as easy to install, with the lowest installation cost, and says FM and infrared need a receiver for every listener, which the venue must clean, issue, collect and keep charged⁴. Listen Technologies, which sells all of these systems, lists RF as budget-friendly and loops as costly and intrusive to install²⁹. Pro Audito says an Auracast transmitter with loaned neckloop receivers costs less than a loop with Auracast, but often does not work well enough in practice³⁰. A US Access Board advisory committee recommends infrared for courtrooms because privacy matters¹⁷. None of these sources reports a survey of buyers or installers^4,29,30,17.

Where sources disagree

Loop advocates write that there is plenty of evidence that patients prefer loops, because loops connect directly to their own hearing aids², and the Center for Hearing Access guide states that consumers prefer loops³. The two larger listener-preference surveys cited here, each with Sterkens among its authors, compared loops with FM and infrared (and, in one question, Wi-Fi audio), left Auracast out, and recruited through hearing-loss networks^5,1,7. A smaller UK survey of 143 people, known only from a trade-press report that gives no method, also found most respondents preferring loops to infrared or FM⁶. A blinded comparison of loops and Auracast, by a hearing-aid maker, found listeners preferred Auracast's sound¹⁸, and in a Swiss trial 23 participants rated Auracast's speech quality at least as good as a loop's, while the testers found loops simpler to operate¹⁹. The CCAA survey quoted for loop preference also found captions the first choice of respondents who gave an opinion, and 531 of 1,335 did not feel informed enough to choose^1,7.

The 2013 survey designed to test demand for an app found high interest in listening through one's own phone⁸. A decade later, 132 of the 251 CCAA respondents who rated a Wi-Fi system's delay found it distracting or objectionable⁷, and RNID states that Wi-Fi networks "often add too much delay to the signal"³¹.

What would settle it

A representative survey including people with mild and moderate loss and people outside advocacy networks, funded independently of the makers being compared, could test preferences across all five technologies among people who have used each; the cited preference surveys do not provide that comparison^5,1,7,6. Venue counts of loop use and receiver loans would complement self-reported use⁷. Independent comparisons of loops and Auracast measuring speech understanding as well as preference would extend the manufacturer’s sound-rating study¹⁸. A survey of buyers and installers could test whether cost and installation factors in the guides actually drive purchases^4,29,30.

Planning while it is open

• Make the system easy to find and use: signs at every entrance, details on the venue's website, in programmes and with tickets, an announcement at the start, trained staff, charged receivers, working neckloops and a simple lending and return routine¹.
• When acquiring a system, weigh ease of use and listeners' preferences¹.
• Keep existing loops tested and maintained^9,32.
• In new buildings, advocates recommend a loop as well as Auracast where feasible^32,33.
• For courtrooms and other rooms where privacy matters, a federal advisory committee recommends infrared¹⁷.
• Hearing professionals: tell every patient about telecoils and loops and recommend hearing aids with telecoils where feasible¹; advocates and a consumer magazine advise choosing a device with both a telecoil and Auracast^26,34,2.

Sources

1. 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
2. Helping People Hear Anywhere with Telecoils and Auracast. Sterkens J, Whyman W. Canadian Audiologist 12(1), January 2025. Nonprofit advocacy (both authors work with the Center for Hearing Access: Wynne Whyman as its director of communication and advocacy, Juliëtte Sterkens as its hearing access advocate; Sterkens left practice in 2012 to work as HLAA's national hearing loop advocate, with outreach funded by the David & Carol Myers Foundation) ↩︎ https://canadianaudiologist.ca/helping-people-hear-anywhere-with-telecoils-and-auracast/
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. Hearing-impaired theatre goers disappointed says survey. Evans J. Lighting & Sound International (LSi Online), 31 May 2016. Independent (survey by Ideas for Ears, which the article calls a specialist social enterprise; reported by a trade magazine; who paid for the survey is not stated) ↩︎ https://lsionline.co.uk/news/hearing-impaired-theatre-goers-disappointed-says-survey--m7402i
7. CCAA Survey on Assistive Communication Technology: Graphs. Committee for Communication Access in America. Committee for Communication Access in America (ccaa.name), 2023. 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), among them hearing loop advocates David Myers and Juliette Sterkens; funding not stated; the survey page says the responses were recorded by the Frost Center for Data and Social Research at Hope College) ↩︎ https://www.ccaa.name/CCAA_Graphs.pdf
8. User Needs: Assistive Listening Systems in Public Venues for Hearing Aid Users (Research Brief 2013, No. 3). Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies (Wireless RERC). Wireless RERC (archive hosted by the Georgia Institute of Technology), 1 August 2013. Government (US Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, grant H133E110002; the questionnaire was designed as a market-needs study for an app-based assistive listening system being developed with Wireless RERC support) ↩︎ https://wirelessrercarchive.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Research%20Brief_Survey_Assistive%20Listening%20Services_2013-08-01.pdf
9. RNID calls for businesses to do better on induction loops. Disability News Service, 23 May 2009. Nonprofit advocacy (reports gathered by campaign volunteers of the UK charity RNID and released for its Deaf Awareness Week campaign; reported by Disability News Service; labelled advocacy rather than an independent test because the reports were gathered for a campaign, with no test protocol described in the news report) ↩︎ https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/rnid-calls-for-businesses-to-do-better-on-induction-loops/
10. Infrared (IR) Assistive Listening Systems. Center for Hearing Access. Center for Hearing Access, The John G. Shedd Institute, 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/infrared/
11. 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
12. 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/
13. Speech Intelligibility in Rooms with and without an Induction Loop for Hearing Aid Users. Kociński J, Ozimek E. Archives of Acoustics 40(1):51-58, 27 January 2015. Independent (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań; supported by a grant from Poland's National Science Centre and by Norway through the Norwegian Financial Mechanism) ↩︎ https://doi.org/10.1515/aoa-2015-0007
14. Evaluating a hearing loop implementation for live orchestral music. McWeeny S, Trainor LJ, Armstrong S, Bosnyak D, Tawfik H, Bruce IC. Ear and Hearing 46(3):808-816, 27 January 2025. Independent (McMaster University; AGE-WELL Canada grant); in-kind hearing aids and fittings from Sonova Canada ↩︎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39868727/
15. Comparison of amplification systems in a classroom. Nábělek AK, Donahue AM, Letowski TR. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 23(1):41-52, January 1986. Government (PubMed indexes US Public Health Service research support and NIH/NINDS grant R01 NS 12035; the abstract gives no funding detail) ↩︎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3958997/
16. Large area assistive listening systems (ALS): review and recommendations. Bakke MH, Levitt H, Ross M, Erickson F. Final report to the U.S. Access Board; Lexington School for the Deaf, Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement, December 1999. Government (U.S. Department of Education, NIDRR grant H133E30015; final report to the U.S. Access Board) ↩︎ https://www.access-board.gov/files/research/assistive-listening-systems.pdf
17. Justice for All: Designing Accessible Courthouses (recommendations from the Courthouse Access Advisory Committee). Courthouse Access Advisory Committee. US Access Board, 15 November 2006. Government (US Access Board federal advisory committee of 35 members, among them the Hearing Loss Association of America, courts, architects, code bodies and disability groups) ↩︎ https://www.access-board.gov/ada/additional-resources/designing-accessible-courthouses.html
18. Sound quality comparison of Auracast and teleloop systems in a real-world environment. Jespersen CT, Hashem R, Aranda de Toro MA, Fernández D. GN Hearing (ReSound) white paper M201742-26.02, 17 February 2026. Manufacturer (GN Hearing) ↩︎ https://centerforhearingaccess.org/uploads/resound-jespersen/
19. Auracast: the webinar and the results of the Pro Audito and ETH Zurich test. Pro Audito Schweiz; questionnaire evaluation by ETH Zurich students Kaufmann R and Brasser A; product tests by Graf B. Pro Audito Schweiz (in German), 20 June 2024. Independent (Pro Audito Schweiz, Swiss hearing-loss association, with ETH Zurich students) ↩︎ https://pro-audito.ch/news/auracast-so-war-das-webinar-und-das-sind-die-ergebnisse/
20. 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/
21. Auracast streamed assistive listening system (resource page). Center for Hearing Access, 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/auracast/
22. "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
23. 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/
24. Audio Over Wi-Fi Assistive Listening Systems. International Association for Hearing Accessibility (IAHA), undated (read 9 October 2026). Trade body (IAHA; its members include manufacturers of assistive listening technologies and other organisations that create or install assistive listening systems, as well as groups supporting people with hearing loss; its funding is not stated) ↩︎ https://iaha-global.com/assistive-listening-technologies/audio-over-wifi/
25. Mobile Fact Sheet. Pew Research Center, 20 November 2025. Independent (Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder; the survey was conducted for the Center by SSRS) ↩︎ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
26. 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/
27. EuroTrak UK 2025. Anovum. European Hearing Instrument Manufacturers Association (EHIMA), 2025. Trade body (commissioned by EHIMA and BIHIMA, the European and British-Irish hearing instrument manufacturers' associations; designed, fielded and analysed by the research firm Anovum with a panel company, and EHIMA approved the questionnaire) ↩︎ https://www.ehima.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/EuroTrak_UK_2025.pdf
28. Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction Results from the MarkeTrak 2022 Survey: Importance of Features and Hearing Care Professionals. Picou EM. Seminars in Hearing 43(4):301-316 (Thieme), 1 December 2022. Trade body (MarkeTrak is supported by the Hearing Industries Association, the US hearing aid industry's association; the issue editorial identifies guest editor Thomas Powers with Powers Consulting, not HIA; the author, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, declares no conflicts of interest) ↩︎ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9715311/
29. Understanding the Assistive Listening Americans with Disabilities Act. Listen Technologies, 25 October 2023. Manufacturer (Listen Technologies, which sells RF/FM, infrared, hearing loop, Wi-Fi and Auracast assistive listening products; owned since February 2023 by Allvida, which also owns the hearing-loop maker Ampetronic) ↩︎ https://www.listentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ADA-White-Paper-2023-10-25-vA1-WEB.pdf
30. Can Bluetooth Auracast be used as an assistive listening system?. Pro Audito Schweiz. Pro Audito Schweiz (in German), 17 February 2025. Nonprofit advocacy (Pro Audito Schweiz, Swiss hearing-loss association) ↩︎ https://pro-audito.ch/news/kann-bluetooth-auracast-als-hoeranlage-eingesetzt-werden/
31. Infrared, FM and Audio Over WiFi. RNID. RNID (Royal National Institute for Deaf People), 27 May 2026. Nonprofit advocacy (RNID, UK charity) ↩︎ https://rnid.org.uk/information-and-support/technology-and-products/assistive-listening/infrared-fm-and-audio-over-wifi/
32. Auracast: a revolution in audio accessibility (RNID Auracast report). RNID (Royal National Institute for Deaf People). RNID, 11 February 2025. Nonprofit advocacy (RNID, UK charity) ↩︎ https://rnid.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Final-Auracast-Report-110225.pdf
33. 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/
34. 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/

Change log

• 10 October 2026Published with 34 sources.
• 13 October 2026Qualified receiver-use figures, added study populations and funding, and cited the research gaps.
• 13 October 2026Independent audit corrected missing telecoils, installation wording, survey eligibility and station-trial attribution.
• 14 October 2026Prepared a table-linked evidence block for owner review; the block remains unpublished.
• 14 October 2026Added Evidence at a glance, drawn from the data tables.

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.