1: \begin{abstract}

2: % For IOP journals not more than 200 words

3: The quality of the inverse 

4: approach in electroencephalography (EEG) source analysis is --- among other things --- 

5: depending on the accuracy of the forward modeling approach, 

6: i.e., the simulation of the electric potential for a known dipole

7: source in the brain.\\ 

8: Here, we use multilayer sphere modeling scenarios to investigate the 

9: performance of three different finite element method (FEM)

10: based EEG forward approaches -- subtraction, Venant and partial integration -- 

11: in the presence of tissue conductivity anisotropy in the source space. 

12: In our studies, the effect of anisotropy on the potential is 

13: related to model errors when ignoring anisotropy and to numerical errors, 

14: convergence behavior and computational speed of the different FEM approaches. 

15: Three different source space anisotropy models that best represent adult, child and 

16: premature baby volume conduction scenarios, are used.\\ 

17: Major findings of the study include (1) source space conductivity anisotropy has a

18: significant effect on electric potential computation: The effect increases with increasing 

19: anisotropy ratio; (2) with numerical errors far

20: below anisotropy effects, all three FEM approaches are able to model source space 

21: anisotropy accordingly, with the Venant approach offering the best 

22: compromise between accuracy and computational speed;  

23: (3) FE meshes have to be fine enough in the subdomain between the source 

24: and the sensors that capture its main activity.

25: We conclude that, especially for the analysis of cortical development,

26: but also for more general applications using EEG source analysis techniques, 

27: source space conductivity anisotropy should be modeled and the  

28: FEM Venant approach is an appropriate method.

29: 

30: \end{abstract}

31: