Abstract Electrical source imaging (ESI) aims at reconstructing the electrical brain activity from measurements of the electric field on the scalp. Even though the localization of single focal sources should be relatively straightforward, different methods provide diverse solutions due to the different underlying assumptions. Furthermore, their input parameter(s) further affects the solution provided by each method, making localization even more challenging. In addition, validations and comparisons are typically performed either on synthetic data or through post-operative outcomes, in both cases with considerable limitations. We use an in-vivo high-density EEG dataset recorded during intracranial single pulse electrical stimulation, in which the true sources are substantially dipolar and their locations are known. We compare ten different ESI methods under multiple choices of input parameters, to assess the accuracy of the best reconstruction, as well as the impact of the parameters on the localization performance. Best reconstructions often fall within 1 cm from the true source, with more accurate methods outperforming less accurate ones by 1 cm, on average. Expectedly, dipolar methods tend to outperform distributed methods. Sensitivity to input parameters varies widely between methods. Depth weighting played no role for three out of six methods implementing it. In terms of regularization parameters, for several distributed methods SNR=1 unexpectedly turned out to be the best choice among the tested ones. Our data show similar levels of accuracy of ESI techniques when applied to “conventional” (32 channels) and dense (64, 128, 256 channels) EEG recordings. Overall findings reinforce the importance that ESI may have in the clinical context, especially when applied to identify the surgical target in potential candidates for epilepsy surgery.

An in-vivo validation of ESI methods with focal sources