I have read with interest that well-written review. One aspect is that some important literature (e.g., previous reviews on a similar topic) is not mentioned. I wonder about the methodology for selecting the papers. Also, it was not clear what are the specific new aspects or updates presented here. Please revise my comments as follows:

1) There have been two reviews, at least with similar content. I believe that different aspects have been considered already in those reviews. I recommend adding them to this review with particular importance in mentioning what different, updates, etc are treated in this review.

Bikson, Marom, Asif Rahman, and Abhishek Datta. "Computational models of transcranial direct current stimulation." Clinical EEG and neuroscience 43.3 (2012): 176-183.

Miranda, Pedro C., et al. "Realistic modeling of transcranial current stimulation: The electric field in the brain." Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering 8 (2018): 20-27.

2) What protocol (e.g., search strategy) did the authors use to find the papers?

3) Please also include the first studies introducing “current flow models” for anatomical head models.

4) “The electric field is a major determinant for the initiation of the physiological and thus the behavioral stimulation effect (Liu et al. 2018)”. This is only one recent study. What are the earliest studies showing this?

5) “Specifically, current flow modeling using individual or matched head models can be employed by clinicians and scientists to e.g. plan dosage in tES protocols for individuals or groups of participants.” There is no mention of analysis for a group of participants. Here are two suggestions:

Gomez-Tames, Jose, et al. "Group-level and functional-region analysis of electric-field shape during cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation with different electrode montages." Journal of neural engineering 16.3 (2019).

Soleimani, Ghazaleh, et al. "Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes." Scientific reports 11.1 (2021): 1-13.

6) It would also be important to revise the available numerical methods, approaches or computational tools for solving the electric fields in terms of individualized computations.
7) A summary table of revised papers treating some of the aspects (e.g. forward level, inverse, biophysical details in volume conductor, physiological models) could be beneficial for the reader.

The authors clarified that this mini-review has focused on new information related to the association between current flow modeling features and the characteristics of behavioral or neurophysiological responses while providing some basic background on modelling methodology. Table 1 becomes essential in this aspect and requires revision.

1) Table 1 needs a column with information on the type of physiological response observed (e.g., MEP and time of observation during or after stimulation). Is sham considered? Is there some association with the electric field reported?
2) Looking at the paper by Jones et al. 2019, Brain Research in Table 1. I am not sure if numerical modelling is used in some way for informing/associating the physiological results. I was surprised that numerical method or software “is not mentioned”. Some minimum requirements or methodological aspects are needed when selecting the papers. Please indicate if there were such minimum criteria considered.
3) The paper cited by SimNIBS (Thielscher et al. 2015) was for TMS. It may be good to indicate the first paper used for tES in SimNIBS.
4) Few papers on guiding stimulation. This one may be considered (Suzuki et.al 2022, Brain Science https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2019.11.018)