## 6 Discussion  
This article is an early attempt to investigate the possibility that an active video game using NUIs can improve the simple reaction time. The data collected and analyzed in the previous section have produced several interesting and impressive results regarding all the research questions raised. These results are presented in the following paragraphs. **RQ1:** Does Tennis Attack improve the in-game reaction time of players? The statistical analysis presented in Section 5.3 proved that Tennis Attack can improve the reaction time of in-game players. As they train and learn how to use the game, they continuously get better. The reaction times of the players are not similar to the real world due to the limitations of technology. Some computers could add an additional 10-50 ms, while some modern TVs could add as much as 150 ms. This finding is in line with [PERSON] [29] who stated that player's hand-eye coordination is very important for the human reaction time and its training is vital to improve the reaction time. Moreover, [PERSON] et al. [30] reported that attentional training grants are important for improvement in overall visual monitoring performance. **RQ2:** Does Tennis Attack improve the real-life reaction time of players? According to the presented statistical analysis (Section 5.2), the reaction time for most of the participants were significantly improved after the activity. Therefore, the improvement in the reaction time was not related to any previous experience with video games (RQ4) or their expertise (RQ3). As we have observed, the improvement was almost identical to all subcategories, which makes Tennis Attack a video game that anyone can use and benefit from. This finding is in line with [PERSON] et al. [31] and [PERSON] et al. [32] who stated that video games enhance visual motor skills and improve the reaction time. Additionally, as [PERSON] et al. [25] stated, some skills can be improved using AVGs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **N** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** & **Mean** & **Std.** \\  & & & & & **Deviation** \\ \hline Pre-training & 60 & 0.568 & 1.387 & 0.965 & 0.190 \\ Session & 60 & 0.602 & 1.235 & 0.820 & 0.127 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: In-game reaction time of the participants. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Paired Differences**} & & & \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **Mean** & **Std.** & **Std. Error** & & **95\% Confidence Interval of** & **t** & **df** & **(Two-** \\  & & **Deviation** & **Mean** & **Lower** & **Upper** & & & **Tailed)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Pair 1} & Pre-training & \multirow{3}{*}{0.144117} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.109806} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.014176} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.115751} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.172483} & \multirow{3}{*}{10.166} & \multirow{3}{*}{59} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.000} \\  & Session-Post-training & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & Session & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Evaluation of statistical significance for improvement in the in-game reaction time. **RQ3:** Is there any significant relationship between a player's expertise and their improvement? As previously shown, there is no significant difference between the mean times of users' real-life and in-game reaction times. Both groups can benefit from Tennis Attack. They equally improve in the game and as a result in real life, which allows them to transfer this improvement into their everyday experiences and even to sports activities. This finding is in line with the research by [PERSON] et al. [33] who proved that traditional sportspeople, professional, and non-professional eSports players showed no differences in SRT improvement. **RQ4:** Is there any significant relationship between a player's gaming experience and their improvement? As shown in RQ3, there is no significant difference between the two groups (pro-gamers and casual gamers). These results are similar to the findings by [PERSON] et al.