A Review of Forward Numerical Methods for Electroencephalography (EEG) Data

Authors

  • S. F. Ali Department of Physics, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan. Government Degree College, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Block 7, Karachi, Pakistan. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2637-2772
  • N. Anjum Government Aisha Bawani College, Karachi, Pakistan. Department of Physics, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan
  • I. A. Siddiqui Department of Physics, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71330/thenucleus.2026.1515

Abstract

Despite its temporal resolution and relatively low cost, electroencephalography (EEG) is one of the most popular methods for investigating brain dynamics because it is noninvasive. Nonetheless, the interpretation of EEG signals essentially relies on the solution of the forward problem, accounting weakly for the electrical activity produced in the brain and how it diffuses, thus arousing scalp potentials. Over the past few years, the development of computational neuroscience and numerical modeling has resulted in increasingly complex forward models using realistic head geometries, anisotropic tissue conductivities, and fine numerical solvers. This review provides an in-depth discussion of the latest forward numerical techniques applied in the analysis of EEG data, including Boundary Element Methods (BEM), Finite Element Methods (FEM), Finite Difference Methods (FDM), and hybrid-computational methods. Other strategies for head modeling, recent computer advances, and the importance of software structures for EEG modeling are also discussed in this review. In addition, it highlights existing issues, such as ambiguity with respect to conductivity, intersubject variability, and computational cost. Finally, new advances in physics-inspired and data-driven modeling techniques are addressed, and the evolution towards more realistic and explainable EEG forward answers is discussed. The review finds that although there have been tremendous advances, the discipline still requires better integration of anatomical realism, numerical stability, and computational efficiency. This review comprises recent advances in AI-supported forward modeling, physics-guided computational methods, and subject-specific conductivity estimation techniques published between 2020 and 2026, none of which have been summarized in any of the prior reviews on EEG forward modeling, which have mostly focused on numerical solutions only. Moreover, it compares classical and emerging numerical methods and presents their advantages and disadvantages, particularly in terms of their applicability to current neuroimaging and brain-computer interface systems.

References

Frey, L.C., Britton, J.W., Frey, L.C., Hopp, J.L., Korb, P., Koubeissi, M.Z., Lievens, W.E., Pestana-Knight, E.M. and St, E.K. (2016). Introduction. Nih.gov. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK390346/ [Accessed 29 Apr. 2026].

Pinotsis, D.A., Fridman, G. and Miller, E.K. (2023). Cytoelectric coupling: Electric fields sculpt neural activity and “tune” the brain’s infrastructure. Progress in Neurobiology, 226, p.102465. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2023.102465.

McCann, H., Pisano, G. and Beltrachini, L. (2019). Variation in Reported Human Head Tissue Electrical Conductivity Values. Brain Topography, 32(5), pp.825–858. doi:10.1007/s10548-019-00710-2.

Depuydt, E., Oostenveld, R., Letter, De, Mierlo, van and Piai, V. (2026). The Impact of Brain Tumors and Craniotomy Lesions on Scalp EEG. Brain Topography, 39(2), pp.24-. doi:10.1007/s10548-026-01178-7.

Hallez, H., Vanrumste, B., Grech, R., Muscat, J., De Clercq, W., Vergult, A., D’Asseler, Y., Camilleri, K.P., Fabri, S.G., Van Huffel, S. and Lemahieu, I. (2007). Review on solving the forward problem in EEG source analysis. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, [online] 4(1). doi:10.1186/1743-0003-4-46.

Baillet, S. (2014). Forward and Inverse Problems of MEG/EEG. Encyclopedia of Computational Neuroscience, pp.1–8. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7320-6_529-1.

Kappel, S.L., Makeig, S. and Kidmose, P. (2019). Ear-EEG Forward Models: Improved Head-Models for Ear-EEG. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13. doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00943.

Peña, E., Pelot, N.A. and Grill, W.M. (2024). Computational models of compound nerve action potentials: Efficient filter-based methods to quantify effects of tissue conductivities, conduction distance, and nerve fiber parameters. PLOS Computational Biology, 20(3), p.e1011833. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011833.

Phillips, A.R., Vakilna, Y.S., D EPMoghaddam, Banta, A., Mosher, J.C. and B Aazhang (2026). Inferring neural sources from electroencephalography: foundations and frontiers. Journal of Neural Engineering, 23(1), p.011002. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ae3e16.

Buzsáki, G., Anastassiou, C.A. and Koch, C. (2012). The origin of extracellular fields and currents — EEG, ECoG, LFP and spikes. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 13(6), p.407. doi:10.1038/nrn3241.

Zhou, Z., Li, X. and Kleiven, S. (2018). Fluid–structure interaction simulation of the brain–skull interface for acute subdural haematoma prediction. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, 18(1), pp.155–173. doi:10.1007/s10237-018-1074-z.

Palka, R., Gratkowski, S., Stawicki, K. and Piotr Baniukiewicz (2009). The forward and inverse problems in magnetic induction tomography of low conductivity structures. Engineering Computations, 26(7), pp.843–856. doi: 10.1108/02644400910985206.

Vatta, F., Meneghini, F., Esposito, F., Mininel, S. and Di Salle, F. (2010). Realistic and Spherical Head Modeling for EEG Forward Problem Solution: A Comparative Cortex-Based Analysis. Computional Intelligence and Neuroscience, (2010), pp.1-11. Doi: 10.1155/2010/97206.

Petrov, Y. (2012). Anisotropic spherical head model and its application to imaging electric activity of the brain. Physical Review E, 86(1). doi:10.1103/physreve.86.011917.

Bampali, K., Hadjinicolaou, M. and Kamvyssas, G. (2025). Analytical Solution for Electric Potential in a Homogeneous Anisotropic Spherical Head Model with Directional Conductivity. 2025 IEEE 25th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE), pp.287–293. doi:10.1109/bibe66822.2025.00055.

Li, X., Zhou, Z. and Kleiven (2020). An anatomically detailed and personalizable head injury model: Significance of brain and white matter tract morphological variability on strain. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, 20(2), p.403. doi:10.1007/s10237-020-01391-8.

Vorwerk, J., Cho, J.-H., Rampp, S. and Wolters, C.H. (2014). A guideline for head volume conductor modeling in EEG and MEG. NeuroImage, 100. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.040.

Rahmouni, L., Merlini, A., Pillain, A. and Andriulli, F.P. (2020). On the modeling of brain fibers in the EEG forward problem via a new family of wire integral equations. Journal of Computational Physics: X, p.100048. doi:10.1016/j.jcpx.2019.100048.

Acar, Z.A., Acar, C.E. and Makeig, S. (2015). Simultaneous head tissue conductivity and EEG source location estimation. NeuroImage, 124(0 0), p.168. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.08.032.

Antonakakis, M., Schrader, S., Aydin, Ü., Khan, A., Gross, J., Zervakis, M., Rampp, S., and Wolters, C. H. (2020). Inter-Subject Variability of Skull Conductivity and Thickness in Calibrated Realistic Head Models. NeuroImage, 223, p.117353. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117353.

Despotović, I., Goossens, B. and Philips, W. (2015). MRI Segmentation of the Human Brain: Challenges, Methods, and Applications. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 2015, p.450341. doi:10.1155/2015/450341.

Forssell, M., Goswami, C., Krishnan, A., Chamanzar, M. and Grover, P. (2021). Effect of skull thickness and conductivity on current propagation for noninvasively injected currents. Journal of Neural Engineering, 18(4), p.046042. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/abebc3.

Awada (2026). Effect of conductivity uncertainties and modeling errors on EEG source localization using a 2-D model. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 45(9). doi:10.1109/10.709557.

Neilson, L.A., Kovalyov, M. and Koles, Z.J. (2005). A computationally efficient method for accurately solving the EEG forward problem in a finely discretized head model. Clinical Neurophysiology, 116(10), pp.2302–2314. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2005.07.010.

Ponasso, G., Wartman, W.A., McSweeney, R.C., Lai, P., Haueisen, J., Maess, B., Knösche, T.R., Weise, K., Noetscher, G.M., Raij, T. and Makaroff, S.N. (2024). Improving EEG Forward Modeling Using High-Resolution Five-Layer BEM-FMM Head Models: Effect on Source Reconstruction Accuracy. Bioengineering, 11(11), p.1071. doi:10.3390/bioengineering11111071.

Nasireh Dayarian and Khadem, A. (2023). Evaluating the Performance of the Hybrid Boundary Element- Finite Element (BE-FE) Method to Solve... Frontiers in Biomedical Technologies, 10(2). doi:10.18502/fbt.v10i2.12219.

Sadleir, R.J. and Argibay (2007). Modeling Skull Electrical Properties. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 35(10), pp.1699–712. doi:10.1007/s10439-007-9343-5.

Morales, E., Acosta-Medina, C.D., Castellanos-Dominguez, G. and Mantini, D. (2018). A Finite-Difference Solution for the EEG Forward Problem in Inhomogeneous Anisotropic Media. Brain Topography, 32(2), pp.229–239. doi:10.1007/s10548-018-0683-2.

Erdbrügger, T., Westhoff, A., Höltershinken, M.B. and Wolters, C.H. (2023). CutFEM forward modeling for EEG source analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 17. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2023.1216758.

Liu, T.-R. (2024). Advanced computational methods for predicting the mechanical responses of engineering materials. ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385525298_Advanced_computational_methods_for_predicting_the_mechanical_responses_of_engineering_materials [Accessed 29 Apr. 2026].

Moridera, Rashed, E.A., Mizutani, S. and Hirata, A. (2021). High-Resolution EEG Source Localization in Segmentation-Free Head Models Based on Finite-Difference Method and Matching Pursuit Algorithm. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 15, p.695668. doi:10.3389/fnins.2021.695668.

Abdullahi, F.I. and Demirer, R.M. (2025). Boundary Element Method for EEG Single-Dipole Localization: A study in patients with OCD disorder 2025 33rd Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference (SIU), [online] pp.1–4. doi:10.1109/siu66497.2025.11111897.

Maya-Anaya, D., Urriolagoitia-Sosa, G., Romero-Ángeles, B., Martinez-Mondragon, M., German-Carcaño, J.M., Correa-Corona, M.I., Trejo-Enríquez, A., Sánchez-Cervantes, A., Urriolagoitia-Luna, A. and Urriolagoitia-Calderón, G.M. (2023). Numerical Analysis Applying the Finite Element Method by Developing a Complex Three-Dimensional Biomodel of the Biological Tissues of the Elbow Joint Using Computerized Axial Tomography. Applied Sciences, 13(15), p.8903. doi:10.3390/app13158903.

Medani, T., Garcia-Prieto, J., Tadel, F., Antonakakis, M., Erdbrügger, T., Höltershinken, M., Mead, W., Schrader, S., Joshi, A., Engwer, C., Wolters, C.H., Mosher, J.C. and Leahy, R.M. (2023). Brainstorm-DUNEuro: An integrated and user-friendly Finite Element Method for modeling electromagnetic brain activity. NeuroImage, 267, p.119851. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119851

Nielsen, J.D. (2022). Developing and Validating Realistic Head Models for Forward Calculation of Electromagnetic Fields with Applications in EEG. Welcome to DTU Research Database. Available at: https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/developing-and-validating-realistic-head-models-for-forward-calcu/ [Accessed 11 June 2026].

Rockhill, A., Larson, E., Stedelin, B., Mantovani, A., Raslan, A., Gramfort, A. and Swann, N. (2022). Intracranial Electrode Location and Analysis in MNE-Python. Journal of Open Source Software, 7(70), p.3897. doi:10.21105/joss.03897.

Glomb, K., Cabral, J., Cattani, A., Mazzoni, A., Raj, A. and Benedetta Franceschiello (2021). Computational Models in Electroencephalography. Brain Topography, 35(1), p.142. doi:10.1007/s10548-021-00828-2.

Verardo, C., Fossati, V., Toni, L., Pierantoni, L., Losanno, E., Filippo Agnesi and Romeni, S. (2026). The optimization of neuroprosthetic interfaces relying on biophysical and surrogate digital twins. npj Biomedical Innovations, 3, p.28. doi:10.1038/s44385-026-00076-8.

Shen, H. and Yu, Y. (2023). Robust Evaluation and Comparison of EEG Source Localization Algorithms for Accurate Reconstruction of Deep Cortical Activity. Mathematics, 11(11). doi:10.3390/math11112450.

Wang, Y., Jiang, C. and Li, C. (2025). A Review of Brain-Computer Interface Technologies: Signal Acquisition Methods and Interaction Paradigms. ResearchGate. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.16471.

Johnson, G.W., Cai, L.Y., Doss, D.J., Jiang, J.W., Negi, A.S., Narasimhan, S., Paulo, D.L., Hernán F J González, Roberson, S.W., Bick, S.K., Chang, C.E., Morgan, V.L., Wallace, M.T. and Englot, D.J. (2022). Localizing seizure onset zones in surgical epilepsy with neurostimulation deep learning. Journal of neurosurgery, 138(4), p.1002. doi:10.3171/2022.8.JNS221321.

Lee, K.M., Ferreira-Santos, F. and Satpute, A.B. (2021). Predictive processing models and affective neuroscience. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 131, p.211. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.09.009.

Silvers, J., Buhle, J.T. and Ochsner, K.N. (2013). The Neuroscience of Emotion Regulation. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199988709.013.0004.

Ruan, J. and Prasad, P. (2001). The Effects of Skull Thickness Variations on Human Head Dynamic Impact Responses. SAE Technical Paper Series, doi:10.4271/2001-22-0018.

Bond, R. R., Finlay, D. D., Nugent, C. D., Breen, C., Guldenring, D., and Daly, M. J. (2012). The effects of electrode misplacement on clinicians’ interpretation of the standard 12-lead electrocardiogram. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 23(7), pp.610–615. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2012.03.011

Oluwasakin, Thomas, T., S. Tingting and Khem Poudel (2023). Minimization of high computational cost in data preprocessing and modeling using MPI4Py. Machine Learning with Applications, 13(9), p.100483. doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2023.100483.

Roumpas, K., Michanetzi, E.-L., Minas, D., Fotopoulos, A. and Xenos, M. (2025). A comparative study of physics-informed and conventional neural networks for predicting on-screen gaze points from eye-tracking data. Expert Systems with Applications, 281, p.127655. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.127655.

Owen, S., Brown, N., Nikos Chrisochoides and Zhang, Y.J. (2025). A Survey of AI Methods for Geometry Preparation and Mesh Generation in Engineering Simulation. ResearchGate. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2512.23719.

Vorwerk (2026). Potential of EEG and EEG/MEG skull conductivity estimation to improve source analysis in presurgical evaluation of epilepsy. Journal of neural engineering, 23(1). doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ae2f01.

Juhasz, Z. and Kozmann (2015). A GPU-based Simultaneous Real-Time EEG Processing and Visualization System for Brain Imaging Applications. ResearchGate. doi:10.1109/MIPRO.2015.7160283.

De, J.C., Wolters, C.H. and Clerc, M. (2012). EEG and MEG: forward modeling. ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278797469_EEG_and_MEG_forward_modeling [Accessed 29 Apr. 2026].

Hafez, Y. (2025). Why The Finite Element Method is the best numerical method. ResearchGate. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.18078.86080.

Abhilash, P.M., Luo, X., Liu, Q. and Qin, Y. (2026). A novel hybrid explainable artificial intelligence modelling approach for smart manufacturing. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 143(1–2), pp.421–437. doi:10.1007/s00170-025-17157-4.

Downloads

Published

23-06-2026

How to Cite

[1]
S. F. Ali, N. Anjum, and I. A. Siddiqui, “A Review of Forward Numerical Methods for Electroencephalography (EEG) Data”, The Nucleus, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 39–47, Jun. 2026.

Issue

Vol. 63 No. 1 (2026)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 The Nucleus

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

For all articles published in The Nucleus, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access licence [CC Attribution 4.0] meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited properly.