Neural Mechanisms of Arbitration between Multiple Experts in Value-Based Decision-Making

doi:10.1017/9781009342919.028

Chapter 22 - Neural Mechanisms of Arbitration between Multiple Experts in Value-Based Decision-Making

from Section V - Cognition–Emotion Interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 September 2025

Cooper Grossman and

John P. O’Doherty

Edited by

Jorge Armony and

Patrik Vuilleumier

Show author details

Jorge Armony: Affiliation:
McGill University, Montréal
Patrik Vuilleumier: Affiliation:
University of Geneva

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The brain faces an array of behavioral control challenges varying in complexity, abstraction, and temporal scale. Leveraging multiple decision-making strategies offers a clear advantage, allowing for adaptability to different contexts. Even when solving a single problem, the selection from or combination of different strategies can enhance the likelihood of success. Consequently, the brain faces the critical task of arbitrating between experts effectively. Here, we review theories of multiple controllers in value-driven decision-making, the mechanisms of arbitration between them, and the neural correlates of such processes. Although these theories have provided meaningful explanations for observed behavior and neural activity, fundamental questions persist regarding the precise nature of these controllers, their interactions, and their neural underpinnings. Notably, the role of subjective states in these computations has been largely overlooked, despite their obvious importance in the experience of making decisions.

Keywords

Decision-making mixture of experts arbitration value

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Human Affective Neuroscience , pp. 444 - 463

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009342919.028 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, C. D. (1982). Variations in the sensitivity of instrumental responding to reinforcer devaluation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34, 77–98.10.1080/14640748208400878CrossRef Google Scholar

Adams, C. D., & Dickinson, A. (1981). Instrumental responding following reinforcer devaluation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, 33, 109–121.10.1080/14640748108400816CrossRef Google Scholar

Averbeck, B. B., & Duchaine, B. (2009). Integration of social and utilitarian factors in decision making. Emotion, 9, 599–608.10.1037/a0016509CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Balleine, B. W., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2010). Human and rodent homologies in action control: corticostriatal determinants of goal-directed and habitual action. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35, 48–69.10.1038/npp.2009.131CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Beierholm, U. R., Anen, C., Quartz, S., & Bossaerts, P. (2011). Separate encoding of model-based and model-free valuations in the human brain. NeuroImage, 58, 955–962.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.071CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bennett, D., Davidson, G., & Niv, Y. (2022). A model of mood as integrated advantage. Psychological Review, 129, 513–541.10.1037/rev0000294CrossRef Google Scholar

Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2016). Liking, wanting, and the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. American Psychologist, 71, 670–679.10.1037/amp0000059CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Botvinick, M., & Weinstein, A. (2014). Model-based hierarchical reinforcement learning and human action control. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369, 20130480.10.1098/rstb.2013.0480CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Brown, V. M., Chen, J., Gillan, C. M., & Price, R. B. (2020). Improving the reliability of computational analyses: Model-based planning and its relationship with compulsivity. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 5, 601–609.Google Scholar PubMed

Burke, C. J., Tobler, P. N., Baddeley, M., & Schultz, W. (2010). Neural mechanisms of observational learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 14431–14436.Google Scholar PubMed

Camerer, C. F., & Li, X. (2021). Neural autopilot and context-sensitivity of habits. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 41, 185–190.10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.07.002CrossRef Google Scholar

Charpentier, C. J., Iigaya, K., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2020). A neuro-computational account of arbitration between choice imitation and goal emulation during human observational learning. Neuron, 106, 687–699.10.1016/j.neuron.2020.02.028CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Charpentier, C. J., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2021). Computational approaches to mentalizing during observational learning and strategic social interactions. In Gilead, M. & Ochsner, K. N. (Eds.), The neural basis of mentalizing (pp. 489–501). Springer.Google Scholar

Chen, C., Takahashi, T., Nakagawa, S., Inoue, T., & Kusumi, I. (2015). Reinforcement learning in depression: A review of computational research. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Reviews, 55, 247–267.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.05.005CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Collette, S., Pauli, W. M., Bossaerts, P., & O’Doherty, J. (2017). Neural computations underlying inverse reinforcement learning in the human brain. eLife, 6, e29718.10.7554/eLife.29718CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Collins, A. G. E., & Cockburn, J. (2020). Beyond dichotomies in reinforcement learning. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 21, 576–586.10.1038/s41583-020-0355-6CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Collins, A. G. E, & Shenhav, A. (2022). Advances in modeling learning and decision-making in neuroscience. Neuropsychopharmacology, 47, 104–118.10.1038/s41386-021-01126-yCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Cooper, J. C., Dunne, S., Furey, T., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2017). Human dorsal striatum encodes prediction errors during observational learning of instrumental actions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 106–118.Google Scholar

Cushman, F., & Morris, A. (2015). Habitual control of goal selection in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 13817–13822.Google Scholar PubMed

Daw, N. D., & Dayan, P. (2014). The algorithmic anatomy of model-based evaluation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369, 20130478.10.1098/rstb.2013.0478CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Daw, N. D., Gershman, S. J., Seymour, B., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2011). Model-based influences on humans’ choices and striatal prediction errors. Neuron, 69, 1204–1215.10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.027CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Daw, N. D., Niv, Y., & Dayan, P. (2005). Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1704–1711.10.1038/nn1560CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Daw, N. D., O’Doherty, J. P., Dayan, P., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans. Nature, 441, 876–879.10.1038/nature04766CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Deserno, L., Huys, Q. J. M., Boehme, R., Buchert, R., Heinze, H. J., Grace, A. A., … Schlagenhauf, F. (2015). Ventral striatal dopamine reflects behavioral and neural signatures of model-based control during sequential decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 1595–1600.Google Scholar PubMed

Dickinson, A. (1985). Actions and habits: The development of behavioural autonomy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences, 308, 67–78.Google Scholar

Doll, B. B., Duncan, K. D., Simon, D. A., Shohamy, D., & Daw, N. D. (2015). Model-based choices involve prospective neural activity. Nature Neuroscience, 18, 767–772.10.1038/nn.3981CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Doll, B. B., Simon, D. A., & Daw, N. D. (2012). The ubiquity of model-based reinforcement learning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 22, 1075–1081.10.1016/j.conb.2012.08.003CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Eldar, E., & Niv, Y. (2015). Interaction between emotional state and learning underlies mood instability. Nature Communications, 6, 6149.10.1038/ncomms7149CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Eldar, E., Rutledge, R. B., Dolan, R. J., & Niv, Y. (2016). Mood as representation of momentum. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 15–24.10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.010CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fanselow, M. S., & Wassum, K. M. (2016). The origins and organization of vertebrate Pavlovian conditioning. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 8, a021717.10.1101/cshperspect.a021717CrossRef Google Scholar

Fetter, M. (2007). Vestibulo-ocular reflex. Neuro-Ophthalmology, 40, 35–51.10.1159/000100348CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Galton, F. (1907). Vox populi. Nature, 75, 450–451.10.1038/075450a0CrossRef Google Scholar

Gera, R., Or, M. B., Tavor, I., Roll, D., Cockburn, J., Barak, S., … Schonberg, T. (2023). Characterizing habit learning in the human brain at the individual and group levels: A multi-modal MRI study. NeuroImage, 272, 120002.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120002CrossRef Google Scholar

Gershman, S. J., Markman, A. B., & Otto, A. R. (2014). Retrospective revaluation in sequential decision making: A tale of two systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 182–194.Google Scholar PubMed

Gläscher, J., Daw, N., Dayan, P., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2010). States versus rewards: Dissociable neural prediction error signals underlying model-based and model-free reinforcement learning. Neuron, 66, 585–595.10.1016/j.neuron.2010.04.016CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hampton, A. N., Bossaerts, P., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2006). The role of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in abstract state-based inference during decision making in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 8360–8367.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1010-06.2006CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hill, M. R., Boorman, E. D., & Fried, I. (2016). Observational learning computations in neurons of the human anterior cingulate cortex. Nature Communications, 7, 1272.10.1038/ncomms12722CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Huang, Y., Yaple, Z. A., & Yu, R. (2020). Goal-oriented and habitual decisions: Neural signatures of model-based and model-free learning. NeuroImage, 215, 116834.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116834CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.Google Scholar

Keramati, M., Dezfouli, A., & Piray, P. (2011). Speed/accuracy trade-off between the habitual and the goal-directed processes. PLoS Computational Biology, 7, e1002055.10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002055CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Keramati, M., Smittenaar, P., Dolan, R. J., & Dayan, P. (2016). Adaptive integration of habits into depth-limited planning defines a habitual-goal-directed spectrum. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 12868–12873.Google Scholar PubMed

Kim, D., Park, G. Y., O’Doherty, J. P., & Lee, S. W. (2019). Task complexity interacts with state-space uncertainty in the arbitration between model-based and model-free learning. Nature Communications, 10, 5738.10.1038/s41467-019-13632-1CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kool, W., Cushman, F. A., & Gershman, S. J. (2018). Competition and cooperation between multiple reinforcement learning systems. In Morris, R., Bornstein, A., & Shenhav, A. (Eds.), Goal-directed decision making (pp. 153–178). Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar

Kool, W., Gershman, S. J., & Cushman, F. A. (2017). Cost-benefit arbitration between multiple reinforcement-learning systems. Psychological Science, 28, 1321–1333.10.1177/0956797617708288CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Korn, C. W., & Bach, D. R. (2018). Heuristic and optimal policy computations in the human brain during sequential decision- making. Nature Communications, 9, 325.10.1038/s41467-017-02750-3CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kroemer, N. B., Lee, Y., Pooseh, S., Eppinger, B., Goschke, T., & Smolka, M. N. (2019). L-DOPA reduces model-free control of behavior by attenuating the transfer of value to action. NeuroImage, 186, 113–125.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.075CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kumar, P., Goer, F., Murray, L., Dillon, D. G., Beltzer, M. L., Cohen, A. L., … Pizzagalli, D. A. (2018). Impaired reward prediction error encoding and striatal-midbrain connectivity in depression. Neuropsychopharmacology, 43, 1581–1588.10.1038/s41386-018-0032-xCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Laird, J. E., Rosenbloom, P. S., & Newell, A. (1986). Chunking in soar: The anatomy of a general learning mechanism. Machine Learning, 1, 11–46.10.1023/A:1022639103969CrossRef Google Scholar

Lee, S. W., Shimojo, S., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2014). Neural computations underlying arbitration between model-based and model-free learning. Neuron, 81, 687–699.10.1016/j.neuron.2013.11.028CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ligneul, R., Mainen, Z. F., Ly, V., & Cools, R. (2022). Stress-sensitive inference of task controllability. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 812–822.10.1038/s41562-022-01306-wCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2016). Learned helplessness at fifty: Insights from neuroscience. Psychological Review, 123, 349–367.10.1037/rev0000033CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

McClure, S. M., Berns, G. S., & Montague, P. R. (2003). Temporal prediction errors in a passive learning task activate human striatum. Neuron, 38, 339–346.10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00154-5CrossRef Google Scholar

McGovern, A., & Barto, A. G. (2001). “Automatic discovery of subgoals in reinforcement learning using diverse density,” in Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2001). Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 361–368.Google Scholar

McNamee, D., Liljeholm, M., Zika, O., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2015). Characterizing the associative content of brain structures involved in habitual and goal-directed actions in humans: A multivariate FMRI study. Journal of Neuroscience, 5, 3764–3771.Google Scholar

Miller, K. J., Ludvig, E. A., Pezzulo, G., & Shenhav, A. (2018). Realigning models of habitual and goal-directed decision-making. In Morris, R., Bornstein, A, & Shenhav, A. (Eds.), Goal-directed decision making: Computations and neural circuits (pp. 407–428). Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar

Moskovitz, T., Miller, K., Sahani, M., & Botvinick, M. M. (2024). Understanding dual process cognition via the minimum description length principle. PLoS Computational Biology, 20, e1012383.10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012383CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Niv, Y., & Schoenbaum, G. (2008). Dialogues on prediction errors. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 265–272.10.1016/j.tics.2008.03.006CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In Davidson, R. J., Schwarts, G. E., & Shapiro, D. (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation, vol. 4 (pp. 1–18). Springer.Google Scholar

O’Doherty, J. P. (2016). Multiple systems for the motivational control of behavior and associated neural substrates in humans. In Simpson, E. H. & Balsam, P. D. (Eds.), Behavioral Neuroscience of Motivation, (pp. 291–312). Springer.Google Scholar

O’Doherty, J., Dayan, P., Schultz, J., Deichmann, R., Friston, K., & Dolan, R. J. (2004). Dissociable roles of ventral and dorsal striatum in instrumental conditioning. Science, 304, 452–454.Google Scholar PubMed

O’Doherty, J., Kringelbach, M. L., Rolls, E. T., Hornak, J., & Andrews, C. (2001). Abstract reward and punishment representations in the human orbitofrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 95–102.Google Scholar PubMed

O’Doherty, J. P., Lee, S. W., Tadayonnejad, R., Cockburn, J., Iigaya, K., & Charpentier, C. J. (2021). Why and how the brain weights contributions from a mixture of experts. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Reviews, 123, 14–23.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.10.022CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pauli, W. M., Gentile, G., Collette, S., Tyszka, J. M., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2019). Evidence for model-based encoding of Pavlovian contingencies in the human brain. Nature Communications, 10, 1099.10.1038/s41467-019-08922-7CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pearson, J. M., Hayden, B. Y., & Platt, M. L. (2010). Explicit information reduces discounting behavior in monkeys. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 237.10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00237CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pezzulo, G., Rigoli, F., & Chersi, F. (2013). The mixed instrumental controller: Using value of information to combine habitual choice and mental simulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 92.10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00092CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pezzulo, G., Rigoli, F., & Friston, K. J. (2018). Hierarchical active inference: A theory of motivated control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 294–306.10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.009CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Phelps, E. A., Lempert, K. M., & Sokol-Hessner, P. (2014). Emotion and decision making: Multiple modulatory neural circuits. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 37, 263–287.10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014119CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Philippe, R., Janet, R., Khalvati, K., Rao, R. P. N., Lee, D., & Dreher, J. C. C. (2024). Neurocomputational mechanisms involved in adaptation to fluctuating intentions of others. Nature Communications, 15, 3189.10.1038/s41467-024-47491-2CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pool, E. R., Pauli, W. M., Kress, C. S., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2019) Behavioural evidence for parallel outcome-sensitive and outcome- insensitive Pavlovian learning systems in humans. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 284–296.10.1038/s41562-018-0527-9CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Reeve, C. D. C. (2014). Nicomachean ethics. Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar

Rolls, E. T. (1990). A theory of emotion, and its application to understanding the neural basis of emotion. Cognition Emotion, 4, 161–190.10.1080/02699939008410795CrossRef Google Scholar

Rutledge, R. B., Skandali, N., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2014). A computational and neural model of momentary subjective well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 12252–12257.Google Scholar PubMed

Sander, D. (2013). Models of emotion: The affective neuroscience approach. In Armony, J. L. & Vuilleumier, P. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of human affective neuroscience (pp. 5–56). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44, 695–729.10.1177/0539018405058216CrossRef Google Scholar

Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1CrossRef Google Scholar

Seok, D., Tadayonnejad, R., Wong, W.-W., O’Neill, J., Cockburn, J., Bari, A. A., … Feusner, J. D. (2022). Neurocircuit dynamics of arbitration between decision-making strategies across obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. NeuroImage: Clinical, 35, 103073.Google Scholar PubMed

Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. (2008). Emotion, decision making, and the amygdala. Neuron, 58, 662–671.10.1016/j.neuron.2008.05.020CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Simon, D. A., & Daw, N. D. (2011). Neural correlates of forward planning in a spatial decision task in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 5526–5539.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4647-10.2011CrossRef Google Scholar

Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. Anchor.Google Scholar

Sutton, R. S. (1990). Integrated architectures for learning, planning, and reacting based on approximating dynamic programming. In Porter, B. & Mooney, R. (Eds.), Machine learning proceedings (pp. 216–224). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Sutton, R. S., Precup, D., & Singh, S. (1999). Between MDPs and semi-MDPs: A framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning. Artificial Intelligence, 112, 181–211.10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00052-1CrossRef Google Scholar

Tricomi, E., Balleine, B. W., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2009). A specific role for posterior dorsolateral striatum in human habit learning. European Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 2225–2232.10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06796.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Valentin, V. V., Dickinson, A., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2007). Determining the neural substrates of goal-directed learning in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 4019–4026.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wagner, A. R., & Rescorla, R. A. (1972). Inhibition in Pavlovian conditioning: Application of a theory. In Boakes, R. A. & Halliday, M. S. (Eds.), Inhibition and learning (pp. 301–336). Academic Press.Google Scholar

Wimmer, G. E., Daw, N. D., & Shohamy, D. (2012). Generalization of value in reinforcement learning by humans. European Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 1092–1104.10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08017.xCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Winkielman, P., Berridge, K. C., & Wilbarger, J. L. (2005). Unconscious affective reactions to masked happy versus angry faces influence consumption behavior and judgments of value. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 121–135.10.1177/0146167204271309CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wunderlich, K., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2012). Mapping value based planning and extensively trained choice in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 15, 786–791.10.1038/nn.3068CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wunderlich, K., Rangel, A., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2009). Neural computations underlying action-based decision making in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 17199–17204.Google Scholar PubMed

Yin, H. H., & Knowlton, B. J. (2006). The role of the basal ganglia in habit formation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 464–476.10.1038/nrn1919CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visual Accessibility

Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.