ARTICLE IN PRESS
Applied Ergonomics 35 (2004) 185–187
Introduction
The occlusion technique: a procedure to assess the HMI of in-vehicle
information and communication systems
In-vehicle information systems (IVIS) are becoming
more and more common these days. While driving, these
systems provide information about the status of the
vehicle, the optimal route, traffic jams, etc. Despite their
usefulness, one could be concerned about the potential
distraction and the additional cognitive load these
systems impose on the driver, leading to an increased
risk of accidents. Proper design of the Human–Machine
Interface (HMI) is unequivocally a key factor in
balancing the demands for increasing functionality with
the already existing physical and mental load of the
driver. In terms of safety, the key issue of HMI design is
also acknowledged by standardisation activities (e.g.
ISO/TC 22/SC 13/WG 8) and official statements such as
the EC-Recommendation ‘‘European Statement of
Principles on Human–Machine Interface for In-Vehicle
Information and Communication Systems’’ (e.g. Gail
et al., 2002; Haller, 1999).
Thus, it becomes obvious that methods for assessing
the HMI of IVIS for safety are urgently needed. One
possibility is to investigate new systems on-board while
driving in real traffic or a driving simulator. Because this
approach is very demanding and expensive, looking for
a method that is easy to use and applicable in the very
early stages of system development would be worth-
while. The occlusion technique has recently come under
consideration as a candidate for an assessment tool that
includes these requirements. The major aim of this
special issue is to collect studies that evaluate and
discuss the validity and utility of the occlusion technique
as a method for HMI assessment of IVIS.
The primary task of driving relies heavily on the
visual channel. Because many in-vehicle tasks performed
while driving also rely on visual perception and control
there is competition for the same resources. Following
from this, methods and tools are needed to assess the
visual demands of the primary driving task and/or those
demands imposed upon the driver by tasks performed
additionally while the vehicle is in motion. The
occlusion technique is considered to be a method for
both: assessing the visual demands of driving and
simulating the interruption caused by doing some other
task while driving. Occlusion is defined as ‘‘the physical
obscuration of vision for a fixed period of time’’ (ISO/
0003-6870/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2003.11.009
TC22/ SC13 WG8, N322). The occlusion technique is
based on the systematic control of the permitted time
intervals for a participant to look at a scene. The period
during which the relevant piece of information is visible
(viewing or presentation time) and the period during
which it is not visible (occlusion time) are the two
essential parameters. One option is for the participants
to determine how long they need to gather all the
information to perform a task flawlessly, and this
requested inspection time is then used as a measure of
required resources. Another method is to control the
inspection time and occlusion time in predefined cycles
(system-paced) and the accuracy and quality of the
information gathered can be used as a measure of
performance (Gelau et al., 1999). It is also possible to
use the occlusion phase, i.e. the period during which the
primary task is invisible, for working on other tasks in
order to increase the validity of the results.
Applications of the occlusion technique have some
tradition in research on driving behaviour. A summary of
the historical development and usage of the method as
well as different technical realisations is given by Green
and Tsimhoni (2001). An early and frequently quoted
study was published by Senders et al. (1967), who
introduced the occlusion technique as a procedure where
subjects could control the occlusion and non-occlusion
times for themselves. Major progress was made by the
development of the so-called PLATO spectacles (Mil-
gram and van der Horst, 1986), which made it technically
very easy to control occlusion and non-occlusion
sequences and eliminated interfering effects of readapting
the eye after the occlusion interval (see van der Horst, this
volume). More recently the occlusion method was
implemented on PCs in order to be able to use it in a
laboratory context without the need of additional devices
such as goggles (e.g. Keinath et al. 2001).
There are two major reasons why the occlusion
method is used in driving research:
1. In most of the studies done in the 1960s and 1980s the
method was used to measure visual demands of the
driving task: how often and how long does a driver
need to view the road in order to undertake the
primary driving task safely?
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
186 Introduction / Applied Ergonomics 35 (2004) 185–187
2. Recently, the method was used in order to simulate
visual demand imposed by the primary driving task
on a secondary task (such as using a navigation
system). The major aim was to measure performance
on a task while being disrupted in a manner similar to
normal driving conditions. It was used to assess
different features of systems under simulated driving.
All papers in this special issue deal in some way with
the occlusion technique as a tool for HMI assessment
of different IVIS.
Prima vista, the interruptions of visual access to a task
that occur while driving are quite different from
interruptions resulting from the occlusion procedure.
Nevertheless, in order to use the occlusion method as a
simulation procedure two arguments can be made:
1. There are certain constraints identified in experimen-
tal research that secondary tasks have to meet in
order to be acceptable while driving. One example is
the duration of single glances away from the road. It
is generally agreed that glances lasting longer than
about 2.0 s. are not acceptable while driving. Another
example is dialogue resumption after disruption. If
disruption leads to a substantial increase in errors
and/or total task time with interruption compared
with without interruption, the respective secondary
task should be considered incompatible with driving
(an example is a dynamic display that change
situation-independently). In cases like this the occlu-
sion procedure can be used as a test-bed in order to
check if constraints are met by tasks proposed for
performance while driving.
2. Based on theoretical assumptions or on a model of
information processing (Altmann and Trafton, 2002;
Anderson and Lebiere, 1998) one might assume that
the interruption because of driving and during
application of the occlusion method are comparable.
This, for example, would be justified if one could
show that the disruptive effects of interruptions are
similar in both conditions. If one could show that
both types of interruption affect the same cognitive
processes then the occlusion situation would be
considered a simulation of the driving condition.
From a psychological point of view it has to be
stressed that the occlusion procedure only manipulates
visual but not cognitive control. Of course, in many
tasks visual and cognitive control are closely tied to each
other but, in general, the interruption of the visual
access to a scene has to be separated from the
interruption of cognitive processes (such as reasoning,
memory retrieval, or strategies that might be applied to
a task even without any visual access to the task set). To
interrupt visual control does not even mean that the task
itself is interrupted necessarily. There are many tasks
(for example talking to a mobile phone) that do not
require any visual control and that will not be affected
by occluding the scene.
The occlusion method can be used as a single task
procedure as well as a procedure to simulate a multi-
task situation. If the participant is just disrupted without
any additional task to be solved during the occlusion
phase we have a single task situation. If there is an
additional task that has to be worked on during
occlusion and if the first task has to be suspended or
abandoned after occluding the scene than we have a
task-switching situation. (The participant has to inter-
rupt the current task while he/she had visual control and
has to switch to another task—like searching for a
particular symbol on a screen or mental calculation.) If
the second (or third) task is in parallel even during the
non-occlusion phase (such as a tracking task) we have a
double (or multi) tasking situation.
Most of the papers collected in this issue of Applied
Ergonomics use the occlusion method in a single task
paradigm: participants are engaged in a task like
entering destinations in a navigation system while they
are disrupted. This is also the general set-up for an
evaluation procedure currently being discussed within
the standardisation process (ISO/TC 22/SC 13/WG 8
‘‘MMI’’). For this type of procedure in particular,
theories and models that deal with the effects of
interruptions are important and they might be used in
future research as a theoretical framework for the
occlusion method.
The papers collected in this issue are a subset of
contributions to a workshop on visual occlusion, that
was held at the FIAT Research Centre (CRF) in
Orbassano/Torino, Italy, on 12–13 November 2001.
The workshop (entitled ‘‘Exploring the occlusion
technique: Progress in recent research and applica-
tions’’) was initiated by ISO/TC 22/SC 13/WG 8 and
aimed to summarise and review recent research on the
occlusion technique. It was felt by this working group
that there was a need to further elaborate the scientific
foundation necessary for drafting an international
standard on the assessment of driver visual distraction.
The establishment of the Work Item ‘‘Visual Distrac-
tion’’ within the ISO/TC 22/SC 13/WG 8 programme
was inspired principally by controversial discussions on
the ‘‘15-seconds-rule’’ (cf. Green, 2002). This rule
suggests a total task time of 15 s as an upper limit for
functions usable while driving. The occlusion technique
was proposed as an alternative procedure, which
discriminates more reliably between acceptable and
unacceptable HMI tasks and avoids several problems
due to a static and global criterion as presented by an
upper limit of the total task time or the total glance time.
Before we give a short overview about the five papers
gathered in this volume, definitions of some basic
concepts and parameters being used throughout the
papers need to be given.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Introduction / Applied Ergonomics 35 (2004) 185–187
1. TTTcondition (total task time): The time it takes to do
a task, under different conditions. Conditions can be
driving in real traffic, driving in a simulator, parking
in a lot, wearing occlusion goggles, etc.
2. OCCLT (occlusion time): The time for which the
scene is occluded in a single sequence. This can be a
constant value, such as 3 sec; or it can follow a certain
distribution, like a normal-distribution with M=3 s
and SD=0.1 s.
3. INSPT (inspection time): The viewing time where the
shutter glasses are open for one sequence. Values
between 1.5 and 2 s are often used. Also INSPT can
be generated by means of a distribution. OCCLT and
INSPT are the essential parameters of the occlusion
method.
4. TSOT (total shutter open time): The total time for
which the scene is visible. If goggles are used this is
the sum of all sequences where the goggles are open.
5. TSCT (total shutter closed time): The total time for
which the scene is not visible. If goggles are used this
is the sum of all sequences where the goggles are
closed.
The paper by van der Horst gives a summary of
different studies, chiefly performed at TNO Human
Factors, The Netherlands. The major aim of theses
studies was to use the occlusion method as a tool to
investigate visual demands of the road environment and
vehicle guidance which also includes applications of the
occlusion technique to assess driver assistance systems;
for example Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC). How the
occlusion technique can be used to simulate disruption
and shift of attention caused by the primary driving task
is shown in the paper by Baumann, Keinath, Krems,
and Bengler. Their results from two experiments suggest
that the technique seems to be a reliable and valid
method for evaluating visual and dialogue aspects of
IVIS. In particular, the ease with which a dialogue can
be resumed after interruption seems to be assessable by
the occlusion procedure. Similar conclusions can be
drawn from the study of Noy, Lemoine, Klachan and
Burns who investigate the occlusion technique with
respect to reliability and sensitivity in a simulator
experiment. In the study reported by Chiang, Brooks
and Weir the shift of visual attention between the lane
and a navigation tool used while driving is investigated.
The data reported are of importance for calibrating the
parameters of the occlusion method when used as a
simulation tool for driving-dependent interruptions. A
more general assessment of the occlusion technique with
regard to the ISO standardisation process is given by
187
Lansdown, Burns and Parkes. They discuss general
occlusion task issues and also compare the method with
other procedures to assist device designers and traffic
authorities in evaluation of new on-board systems.
References
Altmann, E.M., Trafton, J.G., 2002. Memory for goals: an activation-
based model. Cognitive Sci. 26, 39–83.
Anderson, J., Lebiere, Ch., 1998. Atomic components of thought.
Mahwah, Erlbaum.
Gail, J., Nicklisch, F., Gelau, C., Friedel, B., Bolte, F., Sievert, W.,
2002. Bestandsaufnahme der BASt zur Umsetzung der EU-
Empfehlung: Europ.aischer Grundsatzkatalog zur Mensch–
Maschine-Schnittstelle von Informations- und Kommunikations-
systemen. Z. Verkehrssich. 48 (3), 113–116.
Gelau, C., Keinath, A., Baumann, M., Bengler, K., Krems, J.F., 1999.
Die Okklusionsmethode als Verfahren zur Bewertung von visuellen
Displaydarstellungen in Kraftfahrzeugen. Z. Arbeitswissensch. 25
(1), 51–57.
Green, P., Tsimhoni, O. 2001. Visual occlusion to assess the demands
of driving and tasks: the literature. Presentation at the Exploring
the Occlusion Technique: progress in Recent Research and
Applications Workshop, Torino, Italy. http://www.umich.edu/
Bdriving/occlusionworkshop2001/.
Green, P., 2002. Why Safety and Human Factors/Ergonomics
Standards Are So Difficult to Establish. In: de Waard, D.,
Brookhuis, K.A., Weikert, C.M., Toffetti, A. (Eds.), Human
Factors in Transportation, Communication, Health, and the
Workplace. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht, the Netherlands, pp.
9–25.
Haller, R., 1999. HMI— New technologies and safety perspectives.
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference ‘‘Traffic Safety
on Two Continents’’, Malmo. .
Keinath, A., Baumann, M., Gelau, C., Bengler, K., Krems, J.F., 2001.
Occlusion as a technique for evaluating in-car displays. In: Harris,
D. (Ed.), Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, Vol.
5. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot, UK, pp. 391–397.
Milgram, P., van der Horst, R., 1986. Alternating-field stereoscopic
displays using light-scattering liquid crystal spectacles. Displays:
Technol. Appl. 7, 67–72.
Senders, J.W., Kristofferson, A.B., Levison, W.H., Dietrich, D.W.,
Ward, J.L., 1967. The attentional demand of automative driving.
Highway Res. Rec. 195, 15–33.
Christhard Gelau*
Bundesanstalt fuer Strassenwesen/Federal Highway
Research Institute (BASt), P.O. Box 100150, Bergisch
Gladbach, 51401, Germany
Josef F. Krems
Department of Psychology,
Chemnitz University of Technology,
Chemnitz, Germany
*
Bundesanstalt fuer Strassenwesen/Federal Highway Research
Institute (BASt), P.O. Box 100150, Bergisch Gladbach, 51401,
Germany.