Thread Subject: Re: Need comments on provision forInterferncewithHearing Devices

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Diane Golden
Date: Tue, Jul 31 2007 3:30 PM

I'm not sure what I could do in a procurement review with information
reported by vendor about a person subjectively listening for EMI by holding
a hearing aid up to their product. To make that comparable between vendors,
minimally the hearing aid RF immunity would have to be specified, or better
yet one particular make/model of hearing aid would need to be used by all
vendors so the results were comparable across products. The "listening
judgement" would have to be quantified somehow into a rating scale and it
would need to be done for both acoustic and telecoil coupling. Is this what
folks were considering as a method for verification??

Diane


-----Original Message-----
From: Brenda Battat [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:01 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
Subject: RE: [teitac-telecom] Need comments on provision
forInterferncewithHearing Devices



No what I was referring to on the casll was in response to a comment that
how would manufacturers of devices other then wireless handsets know when
they have met this provision as there are no objective ways to measure
outcome. I stated that today a quick way would be hold a hearing aid close
to the device, not necessarily up to the ear, and you can easily hear the
interference - not acoustic feedback - but EMI interference

_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:08 PM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Need comments on provision
forInterferncewithHearing Devices


OK, now I have to say I'm completely confused. Acoustic feedback is whole
different issue from electromagnetic interference. Perhaps I'm wrong, but
my assumption was always that this standard was trying to address the EMI
problem, not acoustic feedback issues. Most feedback is a by-product of the
hearing aid fitting, earmold choice, and positioning of the hearing aid mic
in relation to anything in the environment (usually not E&IT).

Diane Golden
NASCIO

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 2:44 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
Cc: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee';
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Need comments on provision for
InterferncewithHearing Devices



During yesterday's conference call, either Brenda or Karen mentioned that
the only way to test this is to hold a hearing aide near the device and
check for feedback. Can we include a statement to that effect?

(Alternative suggestion from Brenda's email of 7/29)
Potential sources of interference to hearing technologies (including hearing
aids, cochlear implants, and assistive listening devices) must be reduced as
much as possible to provide a more compatible environment for a user of
hearing technologies to utilize the telecommunications product.

(Terry's modification of the alternative)
Potential sources of interference to hearing technologies (including hearing
aids, cochlear implants, and assistive listening devices) must be reduced so
that a hearing aide does not produce any audible feedback when held within
?? inches/centimeters of the device.

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University