Intentional inhibition, the endogenous decision to stop or cancel an action, is arguably a more ecologically valid process than automatized, reactive, inhibition which occurs in response to an external stop signal without active decision making at the moment of inhibition. Choosing to stop an act of opening the fridge door, or of reaching for a bottle of alcohol may therefore extend beyond a reactive inhibitory process, e.g. stopping at a red traffic light. Existing paradigms of intentional inhibition focus on the proportions of intentional stops. Here we developed the Intentional Hand Task, which provides stop response times for intentional and instructed trials. Participants move a cursor by initiating an arm movement, after which a Go, Stop or Choice trial occurs. In Go trials, participants are instructed to make a speeded continuation of their arm movement towards a target whereas in the Stop trials participants are instructed to rapidly stop the already initiated movement. In Choice trials, participants chose whether to continue or stop the movement. By comparing response times when movement was stopped, we found that intentionally stopping took significantly longer than externally instructed stopping. We further investigated the influence of reward incentives, by cueing trials with either the prospect of No, Low or High reward for correctly continuing in Go trials, stopping in Stop trials or achieving a random balance of intentional Go and Stops in Choice trials. Reward incentives led to greater approach behaviours, indicated by significantly higher Go accuracy in instructed Go trials and faster response times across both Go trial types. The presence of reward incentives led to significantly fewer intentional stop choices. Our findings suggest intentional inhibition of an ongoing action may require a further decisional process. Furthermore, monetary incentives may implicitly trigger an appetitive system thus facilitating approach rather than intentional inhibitory behaviour. These findings are particularly relevant to cue-related relapse in disorders of addiction where cues may facilitate approach behaviours to the detriment of intentional inhibitory control.

有意抑制是停止或取消某个动作的内在决定，可以说比自动，反应性抑制更具生态学意义，该过程是响应外部停止信号而发生的，而在抑制时没有主动决策。因此，选择停止打开冰箱门或伸手去拿一瓶酒精的行为可能会超出反应性抑制过程的范围，例如在红色交通信号灯处停止。现有的故意抑制范例集中于故意停止的比例。在这里，我们开发了有意的手动任务，该任务为有意和有指导的试验提供了停止响应时间。参与者通过开始手臂移动来移动光标，然后进行“开始”，“停止”或“选择”尝试。在围棋测试中 指示参与者快速继续其手臂向目标的运动，而在“停止”试验中，指示参与者迅速停止已经开始的运动。在选择试验中，参与者选择是继续还是停止运动。通过比较停止运动时的响应时间，我们发现故意停止花费的时间比外部指示停止的时间长得多。我们通过提示试验以正确，继续进行Go试验，停在Stop试验中或实现故意Go和Stop in Choice试验的随机平衡来提示无，低或高奖励的前景，从而进一步研究了奖励激励的影响。奖励激励导致更大的进场行为，在指示性围棋试验中围棋准确性显着提高，并且两种围棋试验类型的响应时间都更快。奖励激励的存在导致故意停止选择的机会大大减少。我们的发现表明，故意抑制正在进行的操作可能需要进一步的决策过程。此外，金钱激励可能会暗中触发一个竞争性系统，从而促进进取方式，而不是有意的抑制行为。这些发现与成瘾症中与提示有关的复发特别相关，其中提示可能会促进进近行为，从而有损于故意抑制控制。我们的发现表明，故意抑制正在进行的操作可能需要进一步的决策过程。此外，金钱激励可能会暗中触发一个竞争性系统，从而促进进取方式，而不是有意的抑制行为。这些发现与成瘾性疾病中与提示有关的复发特别相关，其中提示可能有助于进近行为，从而有损于故意抑制控制。我们的发现表明，故意抑制正在进行的操作可能需要进一步的决策过程。此外，金钱激励可能会暗中触发一个竞争性系统，从而促进进取方式，而不是有意的抑制行为。这些发现与成瘾性疾病中与提示有关的复发特别相关，其中提示可能有助于进近行为，从而有损于故意抑制控制。