Thirdly, as per the study of (Endrass et al., 2002) but in contrast to the studies of (Barnett et al., 2005; Barnett and Kirk, 2005) the present study estimated IHTT from multiple posterior electrode pairs for both P1 and N1. These electrode pairs were chosen on the basis that they showed the largest component amplitudes to the visual stimuli at both the contralateral and ipsilateral electrode, and were thus anticipated to evince the most reliable peak latencies. Thus there are several potential methodological reasons why the results of the present study are different to the results of the three aforementioned studies.
