## 2 Material and Methods
### Statistical Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **Variable** & \(p\)**-Values** & **F-Value** & \(\eta^{2}\)p & \(\lambda\) \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{E8} & RT (ms) & 0.479 & 0.741 & 0.017 & 1.483 \\  & MT (ms) & 0.054 & 3.01 & 0.064 & 6.02 \\  & EHC (s) & \textless{}0.001 & 10.198 & 0.188 & 20.395 \\  & TPED (\%) & 0.001 & 8.068 & 0.155 & 16.136 \\  & AET (ms) & 0.002 & 6.633 & 0.131 & 13.267 \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{E28} & RT (ms) & \textless{}0.001 & 9.529 & 0.178 & 19.059 \\  & MT (ms) & 0.004 & 5.933 & 0.119 & 11.866 \\  & EHC (s) & \textless{}0.001 & 23.193 & 0.345 & 46.386 \\  & TPED (\%) & 0.126 & 2.123 & 0.046 & 4.246 \\  & AET (ms) & 0.224 & 1.52 & 0.033 & 3.041 \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{C8} & RT (ms) & 0.065 & 2.823 & 0.06 & 5.647 \\  & MT (ms) & 0.501 & 0.696 & 0.016 & 1.392 \\ \cline{1-1}  & EHC (s) & 0.398 & 0.93 & 0.021 & 1.86 \\ \cline{1-1}  & TPED (\%) & 0.493 & 0.713 & 0.016 & 1.425 \\ \cline{1-1}  & AET (ms) & 0.269 & 1.334 & 0.029 & 2.669 \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{C28} & RT (ms) & 0.357 & 1.042 & 0.023 & 2.084 \\  & MT (ms) & 0.089 & 2.483 & 0.053 & 4.966 \\ \cline{1-1}  & EHC (s) & 0.576 & 0.555 & 0.012 & 1.11 \\ \cline{1-1}  & TPED (\%) & 0.262 & 1.359 & 0.03 & 2.718 \\ \cline{1-1}  & AET (ms) & 0.046 & 3.199 & 0.068 & 6.399 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: RT—reaction time; MT—motor time; EHC—eye–hand coordination; TPED—total percent error duration; AET—average error time.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results of mixed model ANOVA for within-groups changes. Subsequent [PERSON] post hoc within-group analysis indicated, as shown in Figures 5 and 6 and Table 4, that both the E8 and E28 groups experienced significant improvements after the intervention, with some improvements persisting in pre- vs. follow-up comparisons. In the E8 group, the pre-test vs. post-test comparison revealed significant improvements in MT (\(p\) = 0.047), despite the ANOVA not showing significant overall changes, as well as in EHC (\(p\) = 0.003), TPED (\(p\) = 0.002) and in AET (\(p\) = 0.002). However, RT did not exhibit significant changes (\(p\) = 0.693), reinforcing the notion that reaction time may require more prolonged training for measurable improvements. Between pre-test and follow-up, EHC remained significantly improved (\(p\) < 0.001), indicating that eye-hand coordination benefits persisted over time, while RT (\(p\) = 1.0), MT (\(p\) = 1.0), TPED (\(p\) = 1.0), and AET (\(p\) = 1.0) showed no sustained differences, suggesting that the improvements in these measures may require continued training to maintain long-term effects. Post-test vs. follow-up comparisons revealed a significant change in TPED (\(p\) = 0.027), suggesting some degree of performance adjustment over time. In the E28 group, significant improvements were observed in RT (\(p\) < 0.001), MT (\(p\) = 0.005), and EHC (\(p\) < 0.001) from pre-test to post-test, confirming that extended VR training effectively enhances both motor response time and coordination. Unlike E8, TPED (\(p\) = 0.124) and AET (\(p\) = 0.553) did not show significant changes, suggesting that these cognitive-motor functions may plateau after a certain training threshold. Comparing  
Figure 5: Significant within-groups comparisons for ReT, \(p\) < 0.05 *, \(p\) < 0.01 **, \(p\) < 0.001 ***. Figure 6: Significant within-groups comparisons for 2 HAND, \(p\) < 0.05 *, \(p\) < 0.01 **, \(p\) < 0.001 ***. pre-test to follow-up, RT (\(p\) = 0.007) and EHC (\(p\) < 0.001) remained significantly improved, suggesting lasting cognitive-motor adaptations. Post-test vs. follow-up comparisons showed that RT (\(p\) = 0.402) and MT (\(p\) = 1.0) remained stable, confirming that the observed benefits were maintained over time without further significant shifts. For the control groups (C8 and C28), there were no significant changes across most comparisons. In C8, there were no significant changes between pre- and post-tests, and comparisons between pre-test and follow-up also yielded non-significant results.