## 4 Discussion and Conclusions  
Results showed significant reading improvements in both RRT conditions (i.e., auditory and visual cue and auditory rhythm only), as compared to the No Intervention control condition. The overall results revealed that reading speed of words and non-words was significantly improved after both RRT conditions, both immediately after and three months after the end of the intervention. In addition, reading accuracy improvements were specifically recorded for low-frequency words immediately after both RRT conditions. Since a test-retest significant effect on text reading was found at follow-up, as measured by improvement in the No Intervention control group, this measure could not be considered as a medium-term outcome of the intervention. RRT's foundation lies within the fact that children with dyslexia fail to identify supra-segmental speech cues, namely, rhythm, pitch, and stress [45; 46], prior to showing weaknesses in manipulating segmental cues, this being an essential ability to acquire grapheme-phoneme correspondences [47]. RRT might support children in segmenting hierarchical acoustic rhythm structures in language connected to phonological units by stressing syllables and on-set-rimes. The found effects on reading speed and accuracy support such hypothesis and are consistent with previous RRT studies [22; 23; 25; 26]. Interestingly, all secondary outcome measures (i.e., rapid automatized naming, phonological, attentional, and rhythmic abilities) improved in both conditions, without significant differences. These findings are consistent with the relationships between reading abilities and non-linguistic abilities, as visuo-spatial attention, rhythmic abilities, and rapid automatized naming previously described in dyslexia [31]. A previous study in which RRT was compared with a training aimed at the visual components of reading [25] reported better results for the latter in the RAN test, while better results for RRT in the phonological tests. Based on these results, we initially expected that visuo-attentional abilities and RAN would be better targeted by the RRT Visual cue condition; however, the results showed that the auditory anticipation in the Rhythm condition was enough to ameliorate the visuo-spatial components and visuo-auditory integrations involved in the reading process. In summary, no significant differences were found between the auditory and visual conditions, therefore showing no additional contribution of the visual component to the RRT effect. Such results suggest that RRT's effect on reading is mainly supported by the improvement in auditory temporal processing. The literature pointed to a potential additional effect of the visual component of the intervention on reading-related cognitive processes, through a facilitation of anticipatory mechanisms [17], no specific contribution of the visual cue setting was found. Such a discrepancy can be read by considering the contrasting neurophysiological literature on temporal processing. [PERSON] and colleagues [48] used ERP to investigate whether temporal processing was modality specific or modality general. The contingent negative variation (CNV), a negative potential which has been strongly linked to temporal encoding and anticipation, showed a larger amplitude for the auditory modality compared to the visual modality, suggesting that the brain is more responsive during the encoding of auditory timing information compared to during encoding of visual timing. According to these findings, the visual modality may be less equipped to form temporal expectancies [48]. This hypothesis is consistent with the results from the RRT training, which demonstrated that rhythm processing depended on the auditory modality and multimodal presentation did not add advantages.