### INTRODUCTION

### Need for the study

### METHODS

### Participants

### Materials

### Procedure

### Analysis

### RESULTS & DISCUSSION

_{p}

^{2}=0.01 [<0.06]; medium effect, η

_{p}

^{2}=0.06 [≥0.06 to <0.14]; and large effect, η

_{p}

^{2}=0.14 [≥0.14] [54]. Likewise, the effect size for a non-parametric test, i.e., Correlation coefficient (

*r*), was determined by dividing the Z value by the square root of the sample size. In this analysis, the interpretation values for

*r*were: 0.1 to 0.3 for a small effect, 0.3 to 0.5 for a medium effect, and 0.5 for a large effect [55].

### a) Comparison of course of learning performance in initial learning session in PWA and NTI

*p*<0.05). As a result, a non-parametric test named the Mann-Whitney

*U*test was utilized to validate the difference in performance based on RT calculated for two averaged trials of block 1 and block 2 between PWA and NTI groups. A statistically significant difference for B1SP1, B1SP2, B2SP1 and B2SP2 (|

*z*|=2.19,

*p*<0.05,

*r*=0.69) were found with large effect size [54] between PWA and NTI groups. Consequently, the two interims measured within the blocks 1 and 2 were separately analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test in PWA and NTI group. It was found that no significant difference between two interims (B1SP1 vs. B1SP2) (|

*z*|=0.51,

*p*>0.05,

*r*=0.11) of block 1 and (B2SP1 vs. B2SP2) (|

*z*|=1.37,

*p*>0.05,

*r*=0.30) block 2 in PWA and (B1SP1 vs. B1SP2) (|

*z*|=0.76,

*p*>0.05,

*r*=0.17) of block 1 and (B2SP1 vs. B2SP2) (|

*z*|=0.45,

*p*>0.05,

*r*=0.10) in NTI group.

*p*>0.05). On the other hand, PWA showed a pattern of progression and regression in the performance. This may be explained by reactive inhibition, decreasing non-reinforced motor performance after several trials [47]. Using adapted-SRTT, similar findings have been reported in typically developing children [42]. Based on mean RT values on this metric, the NTI group outpaced the PWA group substantially faster.

### b) To compare general learning in SRTT across sessions in PWA and NTI

*p*< 0.05). As a result, non-parametric tests were used. Sequence pattern RTs of day 1, day 2, and day 3 were compared between PWA and NTI using Mann-Whitney U test and a significant difference was found for S1 (|

*z*|=2.19,

*p*<0.05,

*r*=0.69), S2 (|

*z*|=2.49,

*p*<0.05,

*r*=0.78), S3 (|

*z*|=2.45,

*p*<0.05,

*r*=0.77) with large effect size. For random patterns, no significant difference was found for R1, R2, and R3 (|

*z*|=1.81,

*p*>0.05,

*r*=0.57), but a large effect size was found. To see the difference between RTs of sequence (S1, S2, S3) and random pattern (R1, R2, R3) within PWA and NTI using Friedman test. It was found that no significant difference in both groups (

*p*>0.05).

### c) To compare specific skill learning of SRTT across sessions in PWA and NTI

*p*>0.05). Hence, the parametric test was used. Mixed ANOVA was performed to see the difference between ISL measures across the sessions and groups. There was no significant effect of ISL measures [

*F*(2,36)=0.74,

*p*=0.48, η

_{p}

^{2}=0.04] with small effect size. Further, no significant interaction effect between specific skill learning and group was found, [

*F*(2, 36)=0.99,

*p*=0.38, η

_{p}

^{2}=0.05] with small effect size. There was a significant effect of the group, indicating both PWA and NTI had a difference in skill learning [

*F*(1, 18)=53.6,

*p*=0.00, η

_{p}

^{2}=0.74] with large significant effect size. Based on a pairwise comparison of possible pairs (ISL1 vs. ISL2 vs. ISL3), it was found no significant difference in any of the pairs (

*p*>0.05).

### d) Consolidation of learning in SRTT in PWA and NTI

*p*>0.05). To compare this across two groups, i.e., PWA vs. NTI, an Independent t-test was used. On average, NTI had better consolidation of learning in C1 (

*M*=14.42,

*SE*=9.29) compared to PWA (

*M*= −24.35,

*SE*=8.51) and significant difference was found (

*t*(18)= −3.07,

*p*=0.006,

*r*=0.58) with large effect size. For C2, PWA had better consolidation of learning (

*M*=7.63,

*SE*=13.20) compared to NTI (

*M*=−5.80,

*SE*=7.98), but this difference was not significant with small effect size [

*t*(18)=0.87,

*p*>0.35,

*r*=0.2].

*p*>0.05). Further, an independent t-test was used to analyze the difference between the two groups. It was found that NTI had better scores on recall block (

*M*=4.80,

*SE*=0.20) compared to PWA (

*M*=2.20,

*SE*=80.41) and significant difference was found (

*t*(18)=4.64,

*p*<0.05,

*r*=0.73) with large effect size.