TABLE 1.

Source separability: Relative increase in residual variance ($\mathit{rv}$) ratio with increasing distance (mm) to the minimal source location $\mathit{rv}$.

Contrast	Distance to source (mm)	Difference	p	CI_low	CI_high
6C‐CutFEM – 3C‐BEM	5	32.0	0.044	0.006	0.640
6C‐CutFEM – 3C‐BEM	10	56.1	<0.001	0.376	0.746
6C‐CutFEM – 3C‐BEM	15	80.2	<0.001	0.682	0.922
6C‐CutFEM – 3C‐BEM	20	104.3	<0.001	0.843	1.242
6C‐CutFEM – 6C‐HexFEM	5	6.4	0.627	−0.253	0.382
6C‐CutFEM – 6C‐HexFEM	10	13.7	0.079	−0.050	0.323
6C‐CutFEM – 6C‐HexFEM	15	20.9	<0.001	0.088	0.330
6C‐CutFEM – 6C‐HexFEM	20	28.1	<0.001	0.081	0.481
6C‐HexFEM – 3C‐BEM	5	25.6	0.106	−0.061	0.573
6C‐HexFEM – 3C‐BEM	10	42.4	<0.001	0.238	0.610
6C‐HexFEM – 3C‐BEM	15	59.3	<0.001	0.472	0.714
6C‐HexFEM – 3C‐BEM	20	76.1	<0.001	0.560	0.962

Note: Pairwise contrasts of the three different forward models. Columns from left to right: Contrast formula (reads Model1 ‘minus’ Model2), distance to the source that minimizes the $\mathit{rv}$, Difference between the methods in %, p‐value, and the 95% Confidence Interval for the difference in $\mathit{rv}$‐ratio. Bold p‐values indicate significant (p < .05) differences.