Poppins Learning, Recognized in a Nature Portfolio Journal

When the first clinical study of Poppins Learning was published in a Nature Portfolio journal, it was a proud moment for the team. It was also a moment to be careful. Good science is only useful if you describe it honestly, so here is exactly what the study found, and what it did not.

Published in a Nature Portfolio journal

In 2025, the first randomized controlled trial of Poppins Learning was published, after peer review, in Scientific Reports, a Nature Portfolio journal, 2025. It was carried out by the research team studying how rhythm-based practice affects reading in children with dyslexia.

Peer review means independent scientists checked the methods and the analysis before the paper ran. It is a bar most reading apps never reach. It is also not a medical clearance of any kind, and Poppins Learning is not a medical treatment. We think both facts are worth saying in the same breath.

What the study actually found

The study was a randomized controlled trial with 151 children with dyslexia. Children were randomly assigned to practice with Poppins Learning or with a control game, and researchers measured their reading before and after.

Here is the part worth stating plainly. The study set a pre-registered primary measure, reading made-up words (pseudowords), and on that measure Poppins Learning did not separate from the control. What did improve were the reading-fluency and speed measures: about +5.05 and +5.44 words (p < 0.05). Spelling did not improve either, which pushed the team toward new features rather than a claim we could not support.

What Poppins Learning is, and what it is not

Poppins Learning is an educational reading practice, built with neuroscientists and designed around how children with dyslexia actually learn. It is not a medical device, and it does not treat or cure dyslexia.

In the U.S., dyslexia is recognized as a specific learning disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It is an educational difference, not a disease, and the FDA does not regulate it. Poppins Learning is built to sit alongside good teaching and reading support, not to replace it. You can read more about the science behind the practice.

A larger trial, still to come

The published study is not the only one. A second, larger randomized trial (n=306) compared Poppins Learning plus weekly reading-specialist sessions against those weekly sessions alone. It is registered and its results are final, but it has not been peer-reviewed or published, so we describe it as tested, never "published."

In that study, children used Poppins Learning for about 20 minutes a day, five days a week, on top of their weekly sessions. The effect was additive. Children who added Poppins Learning to weekly specialist sessions progressed further than children with the weekly sessions alone, roughly doubling their reading progress over the study window. Poppins Learning did not replace the specialist. It added the right kind of practice in between sessions.

What this means for parents and teachers

For a family, the takeaway is measured optimism. There is now published, peer-reviewed evidence that rhythm-based practice can help children with dyslexia read more fluently, and a larger trial suggests it adds real value on top of specialist support. If you are ever worried about your child’s reading, a teacher or reading specialist is the right first call, and Poppins Learning can support the daily practice around that.