o assess normal distribution. When normal distribution was violated (and log-transformation did not suffice), nonparametric tests were employed. Parametric (Student or Welch *t* tests) and nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney *U*) were used appropriately for independent-samples comparisons. For comparisons among 3 groups, univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) or Kruskal-Wallis *H* tests were used appropriately, and post hoc comparisons between groups were Bonferroni-corrected. Pearson *r* and Spearman ρ were used appropriately to examine correlations between questionnaire scores and other measures of interest. We used multiple stepwise linear regression analysis (default α level of 0.05 for entry to model and 0.1 for removal) to assess the proportion of the variance of patients\' scores (questionnaires on emotion regulation) that could be explained by brain abnormalities.

Data availability {#s1-9}
-----------------

The deidentified data will be available and shared by request for purposes of replicating procedures and results.

Results {#s2}
=======

Emotion regulation assessment {#s2-1}
-----------------------------

### Questionnaires: patients vs HCs {#s2-1-1}

Patients scored higher than HCs for labile crying (CNS-LS) (*t* = −2.79, *p*~corr~ = 0.049) but not for laughter (*t* = 0.44, *p*~corr~ \>0.999; 2-way mixed-effects ANOVA: group: *F* = 2.49, *p* = 0.12; emotion: *F* = 1.81, *p* = 0.19; group × emotion: *F* = 5.73, *p* = 0.02). They did not differ from HCs in their empathy quotient (CBS) (*t* = 0.79, *p*~corr~ \>0.999), in irritability (IRQ) (frequency: *U* = 235, *p*~corr~ = 0.450; intensity: *U* = 240.5, *p*~corr~ = 0.450), or anxiety (HADS: *U* = 517, *p*~corr~ = 0.090). They scored higher in the planning (*t* = −4.97, *p*~corr~ \<0.0005) and attention facets (*t* = −3.90, *p*~corr~ = 0.002), but not in the motor facet for impulsiveness (BIS) (*t* = 0.38, *p*~corr~ \>0.999). They also scored higher for depression (HADS) (*U* = 357.5, *p*~corr~ \< 0.0005), although no patient scored within t