That is, change blindness might well result from the minimal representation of scenes or from the failure to explicitly compare the represented scene with the current view. These studies suggest that detailed visual representations are not stored and compared across eye movements or other visual disruptions. Minimal representations are efficient in that they do not internally duplicate information that is still available in the environment. In real world perception, changes generally do not occur without producing a transient signal. Hence, in most cases, the visual system can assume stability without a need to compare detailed representations over time.
Stability is the norm and changes typically produce a signal that draws attention.
A more controversial claim, and one that appears to be supported by change detection evidence, is that change detection requires an explicit comparison of an initial representation to the changed display. According to this view, implicit change detection in the absence of a transient signal should not be possible. If change detection is to serve as a useful tool for examining visual cognition, it is essential to understand both why changes are missed and how some changes are successfully detected. Of course, any evidence for implicit change detection that were not subject to explicit, strategic influences would refute this claim. Until such evidence arises, findings of change blindness suggest a critical role for attention and for awareness in the perception of visual scenes.