## 3 Results
### RRT Immediate Effects
#### 3.2.2 Pre-Post Effects on Secondary Outcomes  
Reading speed of words and non-words improved significantly after intervention within both RRT conditions (i.e., Visual cue and Rhythm) and no difference was found for any of the considered psycholinguistic characteristics of the verbal materials (i.e., length and frequency of use). More precisely, a significant Phase main effect was found on reading speed of short non-words (F(1,35) = 34.55; \(p\) < 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.11), long non-words (F(1,35) = 17.55; \(p\) < 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.06), high-frequency short words (F(1,35) = 11.77; \(p\) = 0.002; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.04), high-frequency long words (F(1,35) = 23.07; \(p\) < 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.04), low-frequency short words (F(1,35) = 15.85; \(p\) < 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.05), and low-frequency long words (F(1,35) = 13.30; \(p\) < 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.02). No significant Phase \(\times\) Condition interaction effect was found (ps ranging from 0.14 to 0.94).  
Reading accuracy was improved after RRT for low-frequency short words (Phase: F(1,35) = 6.71; \(p\) = 0.014; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.03) and low-frequency long words (F(1,35) = 5.11; \(p\) = 0.030; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.01), without significant Phase \(\times\) Condition effects (low-frequency short words: F(1,35) = 0.62; \(p\) = 0.435; low-frequency long words: F(1,35) = 0.32; \(p\) = 0.574). Accuracy of the other reading materials (i.e., short non-words, long non-words, high-frequency short words, and high-frequency long words) was not improved after RRT (ps ranging from 0.11 to 0.96).  
A significant pre-post RAN improvement was found (Phase: F(1,35) = 5.90; \(p\) = 0.020; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.03) with no difference between conditions (Phase \(\times\) Condition: F(1,35) = 0.42; \(p\) = 0.520).  
Performance in phonemic elision improved significantly after both interventions (Phase: F(1,35) = 9.39; \(p\) = 0.004; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.02) and no difference was found between conditions (Phase \(\times\) Condition: F(1,35) = 0.002; \(p\) = 0.963).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **Visual Cue** & **Rhythm** & **No Intervention** \\ \hline Age & 10.7 (1.71) & 10.6 (1.41) & 11.0 (1.89) \\ \hline Sex \({}^{1}\) & & & \\ Male & 12 (57.1) & 12 (57.1) & 8 (50.0) \\ Female & 9 (42.9) & 9 (42.9) & 8 (50.0) \\ \hline Total IQ \({}^{2}\) & 104 (13.3) & 104 (10.3) & 101 (10.4) \\ \hline Pre-test reading & & & \\ Speed (z-scores) & \(-\)1.81 (0.71) & \(-\)1.73 (0.69) & \(-\)1.66 (0.57) \\ Accuracy (z-scores) & \(-\)2.62 (2.17) & \(-\)2.11 (1.49) & \(-\)3.25 (2.72) \\ \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{1}\) Frequencies (Percentages). \({}^{2}\) Total IQ composite score derived from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Forth Edition.  
\end{table}
Table 1: Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviations) of participants’ characteristics and baseline reading measures.  
Consistently with the other secondary outcomes, visual attention was increased after treatment in both conditions (Phase: F(1,18) = 13.26; \(p\) = 0.002; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.23) and the changes did not differ between interventions (Phase \(\times\) Condition: F(1,18) = 6.79; \(p\) = 0.370).  
Rhythmic abilities improved significantly after RRT, following the same pattern. Pre-post changes were found in the rhythmic reproduction (Phase: F(1,34) = 8.17; \(p\) = 0.007; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.01) and tapping (Phase: F(1,16) = 11.39; \(p\) = 0.004; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.21) tasks and the Phase \(\times\) Condition interaction effect was nonsignificant (Reproduction: Phase: F(1,34) = 3.19; \(p\) = 0.083; Tapping: F(1,16) = 0.15; \(p\) = 0.703).