RF Interference in Hearing Aids from Cellphones Part 2: Comparing in-use RF coupling to predictions.

Cellphones and hearing aids are presently tested for their near-field RF emissions and RF immunity, respectively, to predict their mutual compatibility when used together. In the concluding part of this two-part series, we examine the relationship between these independent device measurements and the resultant in-use coupled RF interference, which may be heard as audio frequency noises by the hearing aid wearer. The established standards are seen to be generally reasonable in meeting the compatibility goals (i.e., ensuring a low level of perceived audio interference), but the combined effects of the relative device positioning, the hand, and especially the head add a high degree of uncertainty to the relationship between the actual in-use RF interference coupling and predictions based on individual emissions and immunity measurements.

Subjective assessment of cochlear implant users' signal-to-noise ratio requirements for different levels of wireless device usability.

BACKGROUND: In order to better inform the development and revision of the American National Standards Institute C63.19 and American National Standards Institute/Telecommunications Industry Association-1083 hearing aid compatibility standards, a previous study examined the signal strength and signal (speech)-to-noise (interference) ratio needs of hearing aid users when using wireless and cordless phones in the telecoil coupling mode. This study expands that examination to cochlear implant (CI) users, in both telecoil and microphone modes of use. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the magnetic and acoustic signal levels needed by CI users for comfortable telephone communication and the users' tolerance relative to the speech levels of various interfering wireless communication-related noise types. RESEARCH DESIGN: Design was a descriptive and correlational study. Simulated telephone speech and eight interfering noise types presented as continuous signals were linearly combined and were presented together either acoustically or magnetically to the participants' CIs. The participants could adjust the loudness of the telephone speech and the interfering noises based on several assigned criteria. STUDY SAMPLE: The 21 test participants ranged in age from 23-81 yr. All used wireless phones with their CIs, and 15 also used cordless phones at home. There were 12 participants who normally used the telecoil mode for telephone communication, whereas 9 used the implant's microphone; all were tested accordingly. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A guided-intake questionnaire yielded general background information for each participant. A custom-built test control box fed by prepared speech-and-noise files enabled the tester or test participant, as appropriate, to switch between the various test signals and to precisely control the speech-and-noise levels independently. The tester, but not the test participant, could read and record the selected levels. Subsequent analysis revealed the preferred speech levels, speech (signal)-to-noise ratios, and the effect of possible noise-measurement weighting functions. RESULTS: The participants' preferred telephone speech levels subjectively matched or were somewhat lower than the level that they heard from a 65 dB SPL wideband reference. The mean speech (signal)-to-noise ratio requirement for them to consider their telephone experience "acceptable for normal use" was 20 dB, very similar to the results for the hearing aid users of the previous study. Significant differences in the participants' apparent levels of noise tolerance among the noise types when the noise level was determined using A-weighting were eliminated when a CI-specific noise-measurement weighting was applied. CONCLUSIONS: The results for the CI users in terms of both preferred levels for wireless and cordless phone communication and signal-to-noise requirements closely paralleled the corresponding results for hearing aid users from the previous study, and showed no significant differences between the microphone and telecoil modes of use. Signal-to-noise requirements were directly related to the participants' noise audibility threshold and were independent of noise type when appropriate noise-measurement weighting was applied. Extending the investigation to include noncontinuous interfering noises and forms of radiofrequency interference other than additive audiofrequency noise could be areas of future study.

Radio Frequency Immunity Testing of Hearing Aids.

For many Equipment Under Test (EUT), such as the hearing aids examined in this study, the desired RF immunity measurement result is that which would be measured in the most sensitive EUT orientation relative to an applied RF field. This is generally approximated from measurements at a number of predetermined orientations within a GTEM cell. This paper presents new 6 and 12-orientation "maximal sum" methods of small EUT immunity measurement, which may be considered extensions to present sorted three-input vector summation techniques. Experimental results for the new methods approached the established reference goal more consistently than did other approaches examined employing a comparable number of contributing measurements.

Telecoil-mode hearing aid compatibility performance requirements for wireless and cordless handsets: magnetic signal levels.

BACKGROUND: In the development of the requirements for telecoil-compatible magnetic signal sources for wireless and cordless telephones to be specified in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.19 and ANSI/Telecommunications Industry Association-1083 compatibility standards, it became evident that additional data concerning in-the-field telecoil use and subjective preferences were needed. PURPOSE: Primarily, the magnetic signal levels and, secondarily, the field orientations required for effective and comfortable telecoil use with wireless and cordless handsets needed further characterization. (A companion article addresses user signal-to-noise needs and preferences.) RESEARCH DESIGN: Test subjects used their own hearing aids, which were addressed with both a controlled acoustic speech source and a controlled magnetic speech source. Each subject's hearing aid was first measured to find the telecoil's magnetic field orientation for maximum response, and an appropriate large magnetic head-worn coil was selected to apply the magnetic signal. Subjects could control the strength of the magnetic signal, first to match the loudness of a reference acoustic signal and then to find their Most Comfortable Level (MCL). The subjective judgments were compared against objective in-ear probe tube level measurements. 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. A total of 69 hearing aids were surveyed for their telecoil orientation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A guided intake questionnaire yielded general background information for each subject. A custom-built test jig enabled hearing aid telecoil orientation within the aid to be determined. By comparing this observation with the in-use hearing aid position, the in-use orientation for each telecoil was determined. A custom-built test control box fed by prepared speech recordings from computer files enabled the tester to switch between acoustic and magnetic speech signals and to read and record the subject's selected magnetic level settings. RESULTS: The overwhelming majority of behind-the-ear aids tested exhibited in-use telecoil orientations that were substantially vertical. An insufficient number of participants used in-the-ear aids to be able to draw general conclusions concerning the telecoil orientations of this style aid. The subjects showed a generally consistent preference for telecoil speech levels that subjectively matched the level that they heard from 65 dB SPL acoustic speech. The magnetic level needed to achieve their MCL, however, varied over a 30 dB range. CONCLUSIONS: Producing the necessary magnetic field strengths from a wireless or cordless telephone's handset in an in-use vertical orientation is vital for compatibility with the vast majority of behind-the-ear aids. Due to the very wide range of preferred magnetic signal levels shown, only indirect conclusions can be drawn concerning required signal levels. The strong preference for a 65 dB SPL equivalent level can be combined with established standards addressing hearing aid performance to derive reasonable source level requirements. Greater consistency between in-the-field hearing aid telecoil and microphone sensitivity adjustments could yield improved results for some users.

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.

An evaluation of digital cellular handsets by hearing aid users.

Audible interference from digital cellular telephones (cell phones) has been a long standing problem for hearing aid users. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has lifted the hearing aid compatibility exception on cell phones and imposed a set of requirements effective September 2005. We conducted an experiment to determine how well hearing aid wearers are able to use commercially available digital cell phones. Hearing aid users evaluated the usability of six digital cellular handsets. The results suggest that certain transmission technologies create more annoyance from interference than others and that the type of hearing aid-to-telephone coupling (microphone or telecoil) can influence a user's experience of interference. However, the results also suggest that interference alone does not fully predict the usability of a cell phone for hearing aid users. These findings have implications for the American National Standards Institute C63.19 test and measurement standard that is used to rate cell phones' compliance with the FCC ruling and the education of consumers with regard to their expectations for cell phone use.