Hearing aid users benefit from induction loop when using digital cellular phones

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 119-132

  Sorri, Martti ^a   Piiparinen, Peeta ^b   Huttunen, Kerttu ^a   Haho, Mikko ^b   Tobey, Emily ^c   Thibodeau, Linda ^c   Buckley, Kristi ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

^b NOKIA RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION; FEMALE; FINLAND; HEARING; HEARING AID; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; SCORING SYSTEM; TELEPHONE; UNITED STATES; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADULT; AGED; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; CELLULAR PHONE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRESBYCUSIS; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 0037383598     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000058111.61435.53     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. American National Standards Institute (1996). Specification for Audiometers (ANSI S3.6-1996). New York: American National Standards Institute.
2. American National Standards Institute (1999). American National Standard for Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices and Hearing Aids (ANSI PC63.19, Draft V5.7). New York: American National Standards Institute.
3. Barton, G., Davis, A., Mair, I., Parving, A., Rosenhall, U., & Sorri, M. (2001). Provision of hearing aid services: A comparison between the Nordic countries and the United Kingdom. Scandinavian Audiology, 30(Suppl. 54), 16-20.
4. British Society of Audiology (1988). British Society of Audiology recommendation. Descriptors for pure-tone audiograms. Technical note. British Journal of Audiology, 22, 123.
5. Carhart, R., & Jerger, J. F. (1959). Preferred method of clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 24, 330-345.
6. Cienkowski, K., & Speaks, C. (2000). Subjective vs. objective intelligibility of sentences in listeners with hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 1205- 1210.
7. Cruickshanks, K., Wiley, T., Tweed, T., Klein, B., Kelin, R., Mares-Perlman, J., & Nondahl, D. (1998). Prevalence of hearing loss in older adults in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. The Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 148, 879-886.
8. Davis, A. (1995). Hearing in Adults. The Prevalence and Distribution of Hearing Impairment and Reported Disability in the MRC Institute of Hearing Research's National Study of Hearing. London: Whurr Publishers.
9. Deiss, R. (2001). Information society statistics. Strong growth of PC, Internet and mobile phone usage in the European Union. Statistics in focus. Industry, trade and services. Theme, 4-4: Luxembourg: Eurostat.
10. Eisenberg, L., Dirks, D., Takayanagi, S., & Schaefer Martinez, A. (1998). Subjective judgments of clarity and intelligibility for filtered stimuli with equivalent speech intelligibility index predictions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 327-339.
11. European Hearing Instrument Manufacturers' Association (1995). EHIMA GSM Project Final Report. Hearing aids and GSM mobile telephones: Interference problems, method of measurement and levels of immunity. Odense (Denmark): DELTA Acoustics & Vibration and TELECOM Denmark.
12. EU Work Group (1996). EU Work Group on Genetics of Hearing Impairment. In A. Martini (Ed.), European Commission Directorate, Biomedical and Health Research Programme Hereditary Deafness, Epidemiology and Clinical Research (H.E.A.R.), Infoletter, 2, 8-9.
13. Fleming, S. (2001). Hearing aids and digital mobile phones. A survey of the experiences of hearing aid wearers [Online]. www.hearingconcern.com/eindex.htm; viewed June 25th, 2001.
14. Fry, T. L., Schlegel, R. E., & Grant, H. (2000). Impact of CDMA wireless phone power output and puncture rate on hearing aid interference levels. Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology, January/February 2000, 29-38.
15. Gift, A. (1989). Visual analogue scales: Measurement of subjective phenomena. Nursing Research, 38, 286-288.
16. Hansen, M., & Poulsen, T. (1996). Evaluation of noise in hearing instruments caused by GSM and DECT mobile phones. Scandinavian Audiology, 25, 227-232.
17. Harkins, J. (2001). Practical information for audiologist on access to wireless telephones. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 12, 290-295.
18. International Electrotechnical Commission (1997). Hearing aids - Part 13: Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) (IEC 60118-13). Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission.
19. International Organization for Standardization (1989). Acoustics - Audiometric test methods. Part 1: Basic pure tone air and bone conduction threshold audiometry (ISO 8253-1). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
20. International Organization for Standardization (1991). Acoustics - reference zero for the calibration of pure-tone air conduction audiometers (ISO 389). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
21. Janota, C., & Olach Janota, J. (1991). Intelligibility of telephone speech for the hearing impaired when various microphones are used for acoustic coupling. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 183-188.
22. Kochkin, S. (1992). MarkeTrak III: Higher hearing aid sales don't signal better market penetration. The Hearing Journal, 45, 47-54.
23. Kochkin, S. (2000). MarkeTrak V: "Why my hearing aids are in the drawer": The consumers' perspective. The Hearing Journal, 53, 34-42.
24. Kompis, M., Negri, S., & Häusler, R. (2000). Electromagnetic interference of bone-anchored hearing aids by cellular phones. Acta Otolaryngologica, 120, 855-859.
25. Mouly, M., & Pautet, M.-B. (1992). The GSM System for Mobile Communications. Palaiseau, France: Cell & Sys. Correspondence.
26. Määttä, T., Sorri, M., Huttunen, K., Välimaa, T., & Muhli, A. (2001). On the construction of a Finnish audiometric sentence test. Scandinavian Audiology, 30(Suppl. 52), 171-173.
27. Nokia Corporation (2002). Annual Accounts 2001. Espoo, Finland: Nokia Corporation.
28. Nordic Cooperation on Disability (1997). Hearing Aids. Requirements and Guidelines. 5th Ed. Stockholm: Nordic Cooperation on Disability.
29. Palva, T. (1952). Finnish speech audiometry. Methods and clinical applications. Acta Otolaryngologica, Suppl. 101.
30. Popelka, M., Cruickshanks, K., Wiley, T., Tweed, T., Klein, B., & Klein, R. (1998). Low prevalence of hearing aid use among older adults with hearing loss: the Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study. Journal of American Geriatric Society, 46, 1168-1169.
31. Ravindran, A., Schlegel, R. E., Grant, H., Matthews, P., & Scates, P. (1997). Study measures interference to hearing aids from digital phones. The Hearing Journal, 50, 32-39.
32. Silverman, S. R., & Hirsch, I. J. (1955). Problems related to the use of speech in clinical audiometry. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, 64, 1234-1244.
33. Skopec, M. (1998). Hearing aid electromagnetic interference from digital wireless telephones. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitative Engineering, 6, 235-239.
34. Sorri, M., Huttunen, K., Välimaa, T., Karinen, P., & Löppönen, H. (2001). Cochlear implants and GSM phones. Scandinavian Audiology, 30 (Suppl. 52), 54-56.
35. Stephens, D., Lewis, P., Davis, A., Gianopoulos, I., & Vetter, N. (2001). Hearing aid possession in the population: Lessons from a small country. Audiology, 40, 104-111.
36. Uimonen, S., Huttunen, K., Jounio-Ervasti, K., & Sorri, M. (1999). Do we know the real need for hearing rehabilitation at the population level? Hearing impairments in the 5- to 75-year-old cross-sectional Finnish population. British Journal of Audiology, 33, 53-59.
37. Wewers, M. E., & Lowe, N. K. (1990). A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Research in Nursing & Health, 13, 227-236.