## 2 Material and Methods
### Statistical Analysis
In C28, the only significant change occurred in AET between pre- and post-tests (\(p\) = 0.041), though the small effect size suggests that this improvement was marginal. The absence of significant differences across most control group comparisons further supports that VR training was the primary driver of cognitive-motor enhancements rather than external influences. The observed trends highlight that short-term VR training effectively improves coordination-based tasks, whereas extended training is more beneficial for reaction time enhancements. These findings align with previous research on VR-based cognitive-motor training, which suggests that eye-hand coordination improvements can emerge rapidly [51], whereas reaction time adaptations require longer exposure to training [52]. The large effect size for EHC in E28 further supports the idea that prolonged VR training strengthens sensorimotor integration, a crucial skill in esports performance and other cognitively demanding tasks [53]. The final [PERSON] post hoc between-groups comparisons, shown in Table 5, revealed significant differences, indicating the effectiveness of the interventions. In the pre-test phase, comparisons across groups showed no significant differences, presented in Supplementary Table S1, suggesting that the groups were comparable in their performance on these measures before the intervention. This consistency provided a reliable baseline for evaluating the interventions' impacts. As the study progressed to the post-test phase, the effects of the interventions became more discernible. In the E8 group, significant differences emerged in specific areas. When compared to the C8 group, E8 showed notable differences in MT (\(p\) = 0.003), TPED (\(p\) = 0.003), and AET (\(p\) = 0.006). In follow-up comparisons, presented in Table 6, interestingly, a new difference appeared in RT (\(p\) = 0.016) against C28. The E28 group also demonstrated significant enhancements post-intervention. Compared to C8, E28 showed substantial improvements in MT (\(p\) = 0.037) and EHC (\(p\) = 0.009). In comparison with C28, improvements were observed in EHC (\(p\) < 0.001). These results were consistently significant in follow-up assessments, particularly in EHC against C8 (\(p\) = 0.007). In contrast, the control groups (C8 and C28), except in one instance where in follow-up tests difference between C28 and E8 regarding RT proved to be significant (\(p\) = 0.016), showed no significant differences. This stability indicates that their cognitive functions remained unchanged, underscoring the effectiveness of the VR training interventions in the experimental groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**RT**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**RT**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**ET**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**ET**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**ET**} \\  & **E8** & **E28** & **C8** & **C8** & **E8** & **E8** & **E8** & **E8** & **E8** & **E8** & **E8** & **E8** & **E8** & **E8** & **E8** & **E8** & **E8** & **E8** & **C8** & **C8** \\ \hline E8 & x & 1.0 & 0.873 & 0.063 & x & 1.0 & 0.003 & 1.0 & x & 0.004 & x & 0.004 & 1.0 & x & 1.0 & 0.003 & 0.210 & x & 0.610 & 0.006 & 0.210 \\ E28 & 1.0 & x & 1.0 & 0.096 & 1.0 & x & 0.038 & 1.0 & 0.004 & x & 0.009 & -0.001 & 1.0 & x & 0.045 & 0.987 & 0.610 & x & 0.812 & 1.0 \\ C8 & 0.873 & 1.0 & x & 1.0 & 0.003 & 0.038 & x & 0.152 & 1.0 & 0.009 & x & 0.771 & 0.003 & 0.045 & x & 1.0 & 0.006 & 0.812 & x & 1.0 \\ C28 & 0.063 & 0.096 & 1.0 & x & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & x & 1.0 & -0.001 & 0.771 & x & 0.210 & 0.987 & 1.0 & x & 0.210 & 1.0 & 1.0 & x \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: RT—section time; MT—note time; EHC—eye-hand coordinate; TFD—total percent error duration; AT—average error time.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Results of Bonferroni post hoc comparisons between groups in follow-up tests presented as \(p\)-values.