## 3 Results  
Of the 61 participants who gave signed consent, 3 of them did not start the study because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 58 participants with a mean age of 16.21 \(\pm\) 0.41 years, a mean weight of 64.06 \(\pm\) 15.56 kg, a body mass index of 22.62 and a mean height of 168.11 \(\pm\) 8.50 cm were involved in the study, with 28 (48.3%) being female and 30 (51.7%) being male. With regard to the exergames used in the program, we should indicate that in _Lite-sport_'s Boxing modality, improvements can be perceived in all the parameters analyzed except Good Hits, which shows a slight worsening between the start and end of the program (\(96.73\pm 3.39\) vs. \(95.73\pm 5.47\)). The parameters of Score (\(1644.63\pm 782.77\) vs. 3851.47 \(\pm\) 2050.13), Beststreak (best streak of good hits) (137.46 \(\pm\) 79.57 vs. 203.80 \(\pm\) 112.69) and Calories (13.73 \(\pm\) 5.50 vs. 27.07 \(\pm\) 13.32) stand out. In the Total Body modality, improvements were observed in all the parameters analyzed, especially in the results of Score (4368.60 \(\pm\) 1904.71 vs. 7924.30 \(\pm\) 3124.82), Beststreak (81.90 \(\pm\) 66.01 vs. 153.60 \(\pm\) 75.51), Calories (21.30 \(\pm\) 10.89 vs. 37.10 \(\pm\) 6.45) and Ropeswings (good and fast rope movements) (71.88 \(\pm\) 24.44 vs. 92.91 \(\pm\) 11.81), where the improvements were most noticeable. The data obtained from the exergame _Beat Saber_ at the beginning and end of the training program show improvements in all the parameters analyzed, particularly Good Cut (97.41 \(\pm\) 2.57 vs. 98.72 \(\pm\) 1.27), Score (104,404 \(\pm\) 27,469 vs. 127,936 \(\pm\) 21,068) and Rank, between the first and last session. In the analyzed parameter Rank (classification), we noticed that at the beginning of the training program no participant obtained the maximum rank, SS, and 46.7% of participants achieved rank A, which was the third-best score. However, at the end of the training program, 10% obtained the maximum SS rank score and 50% of the participants achieved the S rank, which was the second-best score. Table 1 shows the intergroup (t student) and intragroup (MANOVA 2 \(\times\) 2) results obtained for the medicine ball test, speed test and points-to-goal/accuracy test. If we focus on the experimental group, in the medicine ball test, which evaluates upper body strength, speed and accuracy (points to goal), significant improvements are shown after 8 weeks of intervention (3.86 \(\pm\) 0.68 vs. 4.06 \(\pm\) 0.67); (2.26 \(\pm\) 0.28 vs. 2.44 \(\pm\) 0.27); (820.00 \(\pm\) 794.12 vs. 1630.00 \(\pm\) 854.66). Regarding the data analysis carried out on the control group, we observed worsening in the parameters analyzed, with significant worsening being perceived for the speed test (2.26 \(\pm\) 0.22 vs. 2.03 \(\pm\) 0.19). The multivariate analysis reflected differential effects in favor of the experimental group. Table 2 shows the data obtained after the development of the coordination training program in IVR environments. We observe that this program obtained high positive experiences (2.66 \(\pm\) 0.94) and provoked a high physical effort (1.27 \(\pm\) 0.77) generating reduced adverse symptomatology, indicating that it is a usable and safe program.