## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Measurement**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Group EXP (n = 15)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Group CON (n = 12)**} \\ \cline{3-7}  & & \(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}\) & **sd** & \(\boldsymbol{p}\) & \(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}\) & **sd** & \(\boldsymbol{p}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Simple Reaction Time [ms]} & I–II & \(-5.47\) & \(33.95\) & \(0.348\) & \(-2.58\) & \(29.28\) & \(0.666\) \\  & II–III & \(-15.93\) & \(31.51\) & \(0.069\) & \(-19.25\) & \(35.41\) & \(0.109\) \\  & I–III & \(-21.4\) & \(32.36\) & \(0.035\) & \(-21.83\) & \(35.54\) & \(0.092\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Complex Reaction Time [ms]} & I–II & \(5.53\) & \(104.73\) & \(0.570\) & \(52.75\) & \(83.81\) & \(0.060\) \\  & II–III & \(-31.6\) & \(93.80\) & \(0.222\) & \(-112.75\) & \(146.90\) & \(0.016\) \\  & I–III & \(-26.07\) & \(89.96\) & \(0.349\) & \(-60.00\) & \(126.29\) & \(0.151\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Visual–Motor Coordination [ms]} & I–II & \(-4.2\) & \(2.81\) & \(<0.001\) & \(-3.24\) & \(2.50\) & \(0.002\) \\  & II–III & \(-2.3\) & \(2.99\) & \(0.012\) & \(-1.07\) & \(4.03\) & \(0.424\) \\  & I–III & \(-6.5\) & \(2.84\) & \(<0.001\) & \(-4.31\) & \(3.73\) & \(0.013\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Spatial Orientation [ms]} & I–II & \(-6.4\) & \(7.41\) & \(0.008\) & \(-4.85\) & \(8.61\) & \(0.129\) \\  & II–III & \(-2.87\) & \(7.9\) & \(0.187\) & \(-2.37\) & \(5.28\) & \(0.176\) \\  & I–III & \(-9.27\) & \(9.92\) & \(0.004\) & \(-7.23\) & \(7.6\) & \(0.003\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Divided Attention [points]} & I–II & \(5.67\) & \(10.08\) & \(0.059\) & \(6.33\) & \(9.76\) & \(0.077\) \\  & II–III & \(2.53\) & \(9.52\) & \(0.394\) & \(4.00\) & \(10.67\) & \(0.230\) \\  & I–III & \(8.2\) & \(11.66\) & \(0.013\) & \(10.33\) & \(8.45\) & \(0.008\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Perception Orientation [points]} & I–II & \(0.37\) & \(3.72\) & \(0.700\) & \(5.77\) & \(9.74\) & \(0.071\) \\  & II–III & \(3.89\) & \(5.89\) & \(0.017\) & \(5.18\) & \(8.61\) & \(0.071\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & I–III & \(4.25\) & \(7.02\) & \(0.036\) & \(10.95\) & \(9.63\) & \(0.003\) \\ \hline \end{tabular} \(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}\)—arithmetic mean; sd—standard deviation; I—first measurement period (pre-test); II—second measurement period (post-test 1); III—third measurement period (post-test 2); \(p\)—level of significance; ms—milliseconds.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Statistical characteristics of psychomotor skill progressions and their intra-group variability in the studied groups (EXP vs. CON) of handball players (n = 27). and the level of developed reaction time and other indicators [37]. For this reason, our publication focused on players competing at the same level of competition. Nevertheless, as [PERSON] et al. report, there may be differences in visual-motor coordination indicators depending on the player's sport level, such as their position in the team--e.g., first or second team [38]. This situation could reflect more favorable test results in the CON group compared to the EXP group during pre-tests, although this relationship was not statistically significant. Moving to the results obtained after 13 weeks of intervention, significant progress was demonstrated compared to the pre-test 1 of the EXP group, which may be a result of manipulating the training process through a high rotation of utilized exercises during training sessions and consequently manipulating the volume and intensity of the conducted training [39]. It is worth noting that most studies used training programs based on linear periodization without significant variability in training parameters and in a much shorter time frame [31; 32]. The literature includes studies considering longer time frames for applied training interventions based on coordination exercises, but so far, they have been used in sports related to handball, such as soccer and volleyball [40; 41; 42].