Telecoil-Mode Hearing Aid Compatibility Performance Requirements for Wireless and Cordless Handsets: Magnetic Signal-to-Noise

Background: During the revision of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.19 and the development of the ANSI/Telecommunications Industry Association–1083 hearing aid compatibility standards, it became evident that additional data concerning user acceptance of interfering magnetic noises generated by wireless and cordless telephones were needed in order to determine the requirements for telecoil-coupling compatibility. Purpose: Further insight was needed into the magnetic signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios required to achieve specific levels of telephone usability by hearing aid wearers. (A companion article addresses magnetic signal level requirements.) Research Design: Test subjects used their own hearing aids. The magnetic signals were applied through large magnetic head-worn coils, selected for the field orientation appropriate for each hearing aid. After adjusting their aid's volume control to an acoustic speech reference, the subjects adjusted the applied magnetic signal level to find their Most Comfortable Level (MCL). Each subject then adjusted the levels of six of eight different representative interfering noises to three levels of subjective telephone usability: “usable for a brief call,” “acceptable for normal use,” and “excellent performance.” Each subject's objective noise audibility threshold in the presence of speech was also obtained for the various noise types. Study Sample: The 57 test subjects covered an age range of 22 to 79 yr, with a self-reported hearing loss duration of 12 to 72 yr. All had telecoils that they used for at least some telecommunications needs. The self-reported degree of hearing loss ranged from moderate to profound. Data Collection and Analysis: A guided intake questionnaire yielded general background information for each subject. A test control box fed by prepared speech and noise recordings from computer files enabled the subject or the tester, depending on the portion of the test, to select A-weighting-normalized noise interference levels in 1.25 dB steps relative to the selected MCL. For each subject for each tested noise type, the values for the selected S/N ratios were recorded for the three categories of subjective usability and the objective noise threshold. Results: About half of the test subjects needed a minimum 21 dB S/N ratio for them to consider their listening experience “acceptable for normal use” of a telephone. With a 30 dB S/N ratio, about 85% of the subjects reported normal use acceptability. Significant differences were apparent in the measured S/N user requirements among the noise types, though, indicating a deficiency in an A-weighted level measurement's ability to consistently predict the subjective acceptability of the various noises. An improved weighting function having both spectral and temporal components was developed to substantially eliminate these predictive inconsistencies. Conclusions: The interfering noise level that subjects chose for a telephone usability rating of “excellent performance” matched closely their objectively measured noise audibility threshold. A rating of “acceptable for normal use” was typically achieved at a 4 dB higher noise level, and a rating of “usable for a brief call,” at a 10.4 dB higher noise level. These results did not relate significantly to noise type or to the subject's aided noise-in-speech hearing acuity.