The central challenge is the inverse nature of the reconstruction: measured signals are available at the body surface, but the underlying locations and strengths of activity are hidden. Mathematical inverse methods estimate source configurations that could have produced those measurements. Consequently, a source map is an evidence-based model, not a direct observation of neuronal tissue.
Head anatomy and modeling assumptions shape how surface measurements are related to possible sources inside the brain. If those inputs or assumptions change, the estimated location and strength of activity can also change. For that reason, researchers interpret reconstructed maps alongside the quality of the sensor data and the assumptions used to generate them.
EEG and MEG contribute different kinds of surface measurements: EEG records electrical signals, whereas MEG records magnetic signals generated by synchronized neuronal currents. The selected sensor modality therefore determines which measurements enter the reconstruction. In either case, mathematical source estimation converts the recorded activity into a model of likely brain locations and strengths.
A typical workflow begins by recording activity with surface sensors, such as EEG or MEG. Researchers then use mathematical inverse methods to estimate the likely locations and strengths of the underlying sources, taking head anatomy and modeling assumptions into account. The resulting source maps are interpreted in relation to the neural process or stimulus being studied.
Source maps can help researchers examine brain organization, communication, and responses to stimuli. By estimating where activity arises and how strong it may be, the maps provide a way to study physiological processes that are not directly visible from surface recordings alone. Their value lies in connecting measured signals with hypotheses about activity inside the brain.
In epilepsy research, reconstructed source maps can support clinical investigation by indicating the likely brain locations associated with recorded electrical or magnetic activity. These estimates do not directly reveal hidden tissue, so interpretation must consider data quality, head anatomy, and model assumptions. Used carefully, the approach can help relate abnormal activity patterns to candidate brain regions.