Overview:
This article investigated the effect of contextual interference (blocked and random practice schedules) on implicit adaptation under two experiments. The participants (120 in Exp.1 and 240 in Exp.2) performed a reaching task (sensorimotor adaptation) by moving the computer cursor with either the trackpad or mouse through a dynamic webpage (probably online at home, individually). Visual feedback perturbation (clamped feedback) was used to providing implicit adaptation. The topic is so interesting for readers and has novelty in practice schedule domain. Although the article has well written, I think it needs some corrections. My comments in details are as follows:

Abstract:
It seems that a summary of experiments 1 and 2 is needed.
What variable was measured? In how many phases? clarify it.

Introduction:
Line 38, “For example, Hal et al. (1994) showed that baseball player …”
Line 40, 42, transfer the references (3-5 and 6) to line 37 after “… sport instructors (3-5)” and “rehabilitation specialists (6)”.
Line 40, “Similarly, Jo et al (2020) indicated that patients post-stroke …”
Line 58, I suggest that you focus on the different between implicit and explicit learning in sensorimotor adaptation and CI. Concepts include “Top-Down, Bottom-Up control; Slow and Fast Adaptation; Forward model, Feedforward”. About implicit learning and CI explain more information. In this regard, review the previous studies (force field adaptation and visuomotor rotation) in more details to clarify explicit learning strategy in the studies. I suggest these article may be useful:
• Coltman SK, Cashaback JG, Gribble PL. Both fast and slow learning processes contribute to savings following sensorimotor adaptation. Journal of neurophysiology. 2019 Apr 1;121(4):1575-83.
• Herzog M, Focke A, Maurus P, Thürer B, Stein T. Random Practice Enhances Retention and Spatial Transfer in Force Field Adaptation. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2022;16.
• Gill SV, Pu X, Woo N, Kim D. The effects of practice schedules on the process of motor adaptation. Journal of Musculoskeletal & Neuronal Interactions. 2018 Dec;18(4):419.
• Taylor JA, Krakauer JW, Ivry RB. Explicit and implicit contributions to learning in a sensorimotor adaptation task. Journal of Neuroscience. 2014 Feb 19;34(8):3023-32.
Line 63, If the assumption is that adaptation might be immune to CI, the relationship between CI and implicit learning which following article is suggested:
Rendell MA, Masters RS, Farrow D, Morris T. An implicit basis for the retention benefits of random practice. Journal of motor behavior. 2010 Dec 30;43(1):1-3.
Line 71-83, this paragraph is suitable for the method section. Here, explain your method for providing implicit learning, generally.
Line 76, I think pure implicit learning would be better provided if the participants were not aware of the feedback manipulation (clamped condition) to discover it themselves.
At the end of the introduction, it is better to state research hypotheses for each experiment.

Methods:
Usually, method section is placed after introduction.
I suggest to separate two experiments (Exp 1.; methods, data analysis, results, discussion; then as same for Exp 2). Finally, general results and discussion were stated.
Given the wide range of age (18-70 yrs), were the groups matched by age? Is not the sensorimotor adaptation different in young and older adults? Address this issue in the introduction as well.
King BR, Fogel SM, Albouy G, Doyon J. Neural correlates of the age-related changes in motor sequence learning and motor adaptation in older adults. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2013 Apr 17;7:142.
Line 300, There was no inclusion and exclusion criteria for research?
Line 324, 40% of screen height is equal to 16 cm, while 1% was equal to 0.4 cm?!!! Are there two targets in procedure of each trial? initial target and main target? Did the main target appear relative to the initial target or start position?
I think to be better if the first paragraph (line 320-326) transfer to the last paragraph of “Reach Task” section (i.e., line 339).
Line 328-338, demonstrate the task (the targets, 30, 45, 60 degree) and task procedure (start location, the target and feedback) in a figure.
Line 330, As same, 20% = 2 cm?!
Line 338, You have a start location, a target position and a cursor, right? So in Fig. 1, the left panel shows the hand movement towards the target and cursor feedback was flipped (constant angular offset from the target). In the right panel, did the angular deviation of hand movement as much as the constant angular results in the cursor feedback on the target? I did not understand middle panel of Fig. 1. Does this mean that the actual hand movement as much as constant deviation does not have effect on the displayed flipped feedback? I did not understand the task procedure for clamped condition exactly. Clarify it.
Line 346, The explanations of feedback condition for clamped feedback is ambiguous. Was the feedback concurrent or delayed? In clamped feedback, was direction of hand movement in opposite to direction of cursor movement? I understand that displacement amount in the clamped feedback should be half of the actual amount of hand movement (veridical feedback condition) to reach the target, otherwise it will be overshoot (according to Fig. 1, middle panel), right? Or in other words, was amount of hand movement presented exaggeratedly (constant value) in the clamped feedback? Explain it in more details.
Line 352, Means and SD for the groups were reported.
Line 370, Blocked Train/Blocked Assess or /Random Assess?
Line 374, In the introduction, you reported that previous studies in motor adaptation used explicit strategy (clockwise, line 68)? In this regard, clarify the difference between previous studies and your study for providing implicit method in the introduction (you used clockwise or counterclockwise).
Line 382, same, Means and SD for the groups were reported.
Line 383-385, When you stated that Exp 2. Was the same as Exp 1, there is no need to repeat the process.
Line 385, Because of which results of Exp 1, did you do Exp 2? Why was Exp 2 done? State the difference between two experiments, clearly.
Was sampling and dividing participants into the groups (two groups in Exp 1 and four groups in Exp 2) randomly or not?
Line 389-396, This paragraph is appropriate for “Data Analysis” section.
Line 392, serial or blocked?!

Data Analysis:
Line 400, Why did you calculate hand angle? Why not radial error of performance? For clamped feedback, hand angle was the hand angle based on actual motion or was the feedback flipped? I remember that you instructed to the participants to ignore the flipped feedback, right?
Line 415, “… perturbation phase (clamped feedback).”
Line 419, Scores or angle?! Do you mean to retention is relative retention (percentage score)?
For two experiments, write mixed ANOVA (within- and between-group factors). Was mixed ANOVA with repeated measures (early, late, aftereffect)? What about covariate (baseline)?
The lack of normality may have been due to the high variability of performance in older adults compared to young. Maybe it is better to separate them.

Results:
Line 89-96, this paragraph is appropriate for method section after task procedure.
Indeed, no-feedback assessment as immediate retention and no feedback baseline as baseline performance. You can this terms to clear it.
In general, for each experiment, define within- and between-group factors in the data analysis section, then report the main and interaction effects in the results section, then post hoc test where is needed and finally compare the means (M, SD).
Line 169, in the Exp 2, you have one target (45 degree). How did you provide random and blocked schedule?
F values less than 1 write F < 1.
Report partial eta square values to two decimal places.

Discussion:
Although the discussion well written, but it seems that Bottom-up control, forward model and slow and fast adaptation theory are more appropriate to clarify random practice effects in implicit learning.
Line 266, this is proper to future study section.
I enjoyed studying this article.

The revision has been done well. However, there are still some issues that are as follows:

I still believe that a summary of experiments 1 and 2 is needed in the abstract to make the distinction between the two experiments clear.
How many phases was the research done? State it clearly in the abstract.
Line 26, Do you mean perceptual (visual) perturbation? Determine it.
It is important in the abstract that why two experiments were done.
Line 63, Rapid, top-down or bottom-up?! As same, slow strategy, bottom-up or top-down?! Explain it in more details.
In the results, how was the hand angle calculated?
It seems some partial eta squares were reported incorrectly, recheck it.
Line 473, How did you control timing in the experiment 2?
Line 501, need to references. Also, explain bottom-up mechanism in percepto-motor adaptation in random practice.