Tempt the Senses

An in depth look at Subjective Sensory Perceptions

and their effects on Consumer Choices

Jessilyn Cauble
March 23, 2015
Nutrition 205

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to take an in depth look at sensory evaluation and its results
in relation to consumers preference and acceptability of a product. A products capability to
elicit the 5 senses, provoke interaction among the sensory criteria, and in the process shape that
individuals perception is demonstrated. Multiple tests were conducted to scientifically quantify
the sensory response untrained, Nutrition 205 students experienced to the presented food or
beverage item. The tests utilized in this experiment were the Color Association Perception of
beverages, Descriptive, Paired Comparison, Triangle, Ranking, Duo-Tri, and Rating test. The
results revealed that the human senses are the greatest influential factors in creating an
individuals perception of a food or beverage item.

Introduction

In present time, every individual, at any given time is exposed to a plethora of food choices. This
wide assortment of options makes the reasoning behind what people eat and why that much more
intriguing. A topic food industries, in particular, take a significant interest in discovering, employ
professionals to dissect, and spend an abundant time researching, testing, and analyzing. Sensory
testing uses several scientific methods and various tests to measure the sensory criteria utilized in
food selection. Several interrelated factors are incorporated with every food item selected
ranging from culture and religion, psychological and sociological factors, to availability and
skill. Discovering what motivates a consumer then becomes of optimum importance to a food
company because of its influential nature on food choice. Unveiling this valid information, the
motivators, can give companies the advantage they need to entice consumers and develop a
competitive item. For this reason, a factor analysis was conducted to examine the responses
from 358 individuals, aged 18 to 87 years, with the objective to develop an instrument able to
decipher which of these factors, amongst the seemingly infinite facets, contributes the greatest
impact on choice. The Food Choice Questionnaire was developed as a result of this factor
analysis that revealed the core motives of food selection as health, mood, convenience, natural
content, price, weight, control, familiarity, ethical concern, and sensory appeal.1 Among this list
of contributing influences, according to Pollard et al. sensory factors are among the most
influential in determining eating behaviors.2 Controlling food characteristics such as texture,
taste, quality, smell, and appearance to assure a positive appeal to the senses becomes priority.
Thus, foods effect on the senses becomes the substantial determinant of product acceptability,
the first purpose of sensory testing. When discussing the evolution of sensory evaluation Stone
emphasizes the continuous need for this type of testing due to the prominent connection between
sensory acceptance and a products success in the marketplace.3 Revealing a second important

utilization of sensory evaluations, determining product marketability. Sensory tests are applied to
evaluate food quality. A products perceived degree of excellence is dependent upon the degree of
appeal to human sensory organs. Ultimately, application of sensory tests to determine a food
products quality and acceptability is dependent upon if and to what degree stimulation of the 5
senses occurs.
Sight, the first of the senses to be stimulated, receive the first impression of a product. This sense
enables one to perceive a foods shape, color, consistency, size and appearance. According to
Nanette et al., the color of food is capable of influencing the selection of a food and by varying
the levels of a foods color, intake can be altered.4 The color of food gives insight into a food
items food quality, degree of ripeness, and overall appeal. Lawless et al. conducted a study to
determine the effect color change in fruit juices has on perceived sweetness. American children
were divided into 3 sections separated by age of 5 to 7, 8 to 10, and 11 to 14 years and given fruit
beverages ranging in shades of red to judge on the basis of sweet content. The children judged
the lighter color red as sweeter, in direct contrast with the hypothesized result of darker red color
raising sweetness. These results reveal that at a young age judged levels of sweetness may be
more closely correlated with sweet aromas than color.5 The sensory criteria of touch, constituting
both mouth feel and the sensory experience created with fingers, is also evaluated in sensory
tests and contributes to food selection. This sensory component enables detection of texture,
astringency, consistency, and chemesthesis. Astringency is defined as the dry, puckering feeling
in the mouth caused by the drawing out of the proteins in the saliva. Chemesthesis is the hot or
cold perception of food that are not physically either. The perception of a foods texture happens
in stages first through sight by way of visual appearance, touch with the fingers, than through
stimulation of the cells within the mouth. Brumstrom et al. conducted a study in which

participants tasted and rated the sensory characteristics of 16 fruit yogurt drinks that increased in
viscosity by the addition of small, monitored quantities of tara gum. The untrained panelists were
able to distinguish the variance in textures. In the second study, a separate set of participants
were instructed to rate the sensory characteristics of 8 presented versions of fruit yogurt drinks
varying in thick texture (thin to thick), creamy flavor (low creamy to creamy), and energy
content (high to low energy). The participants were also instructed to rate how filling the drink
would be on a 1 to 100 scale (1 not at all, 100 extremely) and expected satiety. The results
showed that the thick texture and creamy flavor were both perceived as more filling but with a
greater extent with the thick. The thick texture also received increased expected satiety scores
and the belief it would decrease hunger over time.6 These results indicate that sensory
characteristics, in this case texture, can be manipulated to influence consumers perception of a
food product ( i.e. satiety). Sounds that accompany a food influence perception of that foods
quality. The sounds created are due to the foods water content and can be a core indicator of
their level of freshness. According to Parker et al., when studying the cell wall structure of
vegetables, a study was conducted to reveal the connection between sound, from an intact cell
wall, and perceived quality. The results showed that the number of emitted sounds per unit biting
distance and the intensity of those sounds changed with the perceived crispness of the vegetable.
Thus crispness was closely correlated to the sensory acoustic loudness and less related to
firmness.7 Another factor elicited in sensory evaluations, sense of smell, evaluates the quality of
food via the detection of odors. An odor is perceived when volatile compounds evaporate into the
air, travel to the olfactory epithelium of the nose, and are detected by olfactory cells. Olfactory
and gustatory cells work in tandem to create the perceived flavor of a food, with aroma
contributing the greater impression. The final sensory criteria, taste, provides the greatest impact

on food preference. A taste is experienced when a combination of volatile and nonvolatile

compounds dissolve in a 99.5% water solution (i.e. saliva) and come in direct contact with taste
receptors in the mouth. The taste buds relay this information to the brain via nerve cells that in
response signal the 5 sensations of sweet, sour, bitter, salty, and umami. The taste experienced is
dependent upon the chemical compounds the stimuli, in this case food, is composed of. An
experiment was conducted by Wei et al. to discover the ideal color appearance of a particular
food. In phase 1, 15 observers were shown and instructed to assess 174 various colors of orange
juice rendered through the CIELAB color space. Through application of the CIELAB formula it
was found that orange juice would be deemed acceptable if the color difference between the
formulated juice and the ideal color for juice was less than 12.06 units. In phase 2, the same 15
participants were instructed to asses the 174 color variants in terms of the five taste stimuli.
Increased sourness and bitterness was perceived with a greenish hue, darker juices portrayed
bitterness, the increased red or yellow shades of orange juice stimulated a sweeter and stronger
flavor, and saturated yellow correlated with being fresher.8 The results of this study give insight
into the connection of visual judgments and perceived taste expectations. The in depth
knowledge pertaining to each sensory criteria is invaluable in understanding the under workings
and fine details of sensory testing.
Sensory evaluations are divided into two categories, Analytical (effective) tests and
Affective tests. The category utilized during an evaluation will be dependent on the projected
goal of the test. Analytical tests are objective by nature and performed to detect differences.
Discrimative tests decipher if the samples are different and Descriptive tests quantify the
differences. The latter tests are typically reliant on trained individuals with the capacity to
distinguish a food products flavor and texture profiles. The common descriptive tests conducted

are triangle, duo-trio, paired comparison and ranking tests. All of which are applied in this study.
The triangle tests objective is to discern the odd sample among the 3 presented. The duo-trio test
also distributes 3 samples simultaneously and 1 sample is denoted the reference. The participants
determine of the 2 remaining which parallels the standard. Utilization of both these tests to
monitor quality control within distilleries dates back to the 1940s and are still beneficial today.9
Paired comparison specifies a characteristic to focus on, distributes two samples and the chosen
sample is the one more intense in said characteristic. Ranking tests scale samples (more than 2)
from highest to lowest on the basis of a predetermined characteristic. Affective tests are
conducted to detect individuals preferences. Consumers of the product being tested are ideal to
participate. This vast array of tests, each varying in format and design, interconnect under the
disciple sensory evaluation and work in unison to determine consumer preference and
acceptability.
Methods
Panelists
The Panelists consisted of 86 (n=86) untrained individuals. Each participant was a current
student of San Diego State University (SDSU) and enrolled in the Introductory to Science of
Food laboratory course. The individuals were assigned by their instructor the task to complete a
series of sensory evaluation tests, 7 in total, and data was collected after each separate
experiment by request of the instructor. The instructor informed the individuals, prior to testing,
that their results would be collected by a raise of their hand denoting that the option the
instructor had just spoken was the choice they had selected for that particular test. The results
were entered into an excel spreadsheet by the lab assistant for later use. The panelists were
divided into 4 separate sections, each consisting of 21 students, with the exception of section 3
pertaining a total of 23. Before the various sensory experiments were conducted each panelist

completed a demographic questionnaire. The age demographic represented by the panelists

ranged from 18 to 39 years of age with the percent distribution for each specific age being 26.7%
being 19 years of age, 25.5% 20 years, 5.8% 21 years, 6.9% for both 22 and 23 years of age,
8.1% 24 years, 4.6% 25 years, 1.1% for each age 26 through 28 years, 3.4% being 29 years, and
8.1% of the panelists were between the age of 30 to 39 years. Females accounted for 84.8% of
the total participants while 15.1% were male and of these, 89.5% were single, 6.9% were
married, and 3.4% were divorced. The majority of the participants, 93%, were classified as
undergraduates and the remaining 6.9% were graduate students. Food and Nutrition was the
extensively represented major comprising 98.8% of the panelist while the other 1.1% were
associated with the broader category of other. A mere 3.4% lived alone, 22% had a single
roommate, and 74.4% reported having 2 or more living companions. To ensure accurate
reporting and to keep individuals anonymous the instructor requested all to close their eyes when
collecting the totals for those who smoke, 4.6%, and those who do not, 95.3%. The final reported
demographics were the dietary restrictions amongst the participants with 6.9% being vegan,
3.4% being vegetarian, and 24.4% of the panelists having allergies of some kind (75.5% have no
allergies). The allergies reported by the panelists were further specified with 1.2% (1 individual)
having an aversion to dairy, 3.5% (3 individuals) allergic to wheat, 6.9% (6 individuals) had an
adverse effect to a medication, 2.3% (2 individuals) of the panelists to pineapple, 2.3% (2
individuals) allergic to dust, and each of the remaining reported allergens of kiwi, fish, corn,
nuts, cranberries, cherries, lima beans, and cats each had an adverse effect with a single
participant, 1.2% of the panelist.
Environment

The sensory evaluation testing was held on SDSU campus within the Introductory of
Food Science laboratory. The classroom was located on the second floor, in room 203, of the
West Commons building. Upon entering, the room was well lit and organized with ceiling high
cabinets, multiple sink stations, 2 refrigerators, and 6 ovens lining the perimeter. The classroom
contained several rows of closely aligned individual desks, each facing the front of the room,
along with two larger additional tables in the back. As each participant arrived they were granted
the option of choosing their seat and though highly discouraged, talking was permitted. Section 1
arrived to be tested on Monday at 9:00am, section 2 at 1:00pm, and section 3 at 4pm. Section 4
was tested the following day, Tuesday at 1:00pm. Aside from the seated panelists the instructor,
the lab tech, and 2 lab assistants were also present. The room was held at a consistent
temperature of 70 degrees. Before testing began the lab tech dispersed a 6 ounce serving cup of
water to each participant to cleanse the palate between tastings. The lab tech offered the
participants the option to receive a refill indefinitely throughout the testing session.
Sensory Evaluation Tests
Color Association Perception of Beverage
The panelist were seated with the necessary printed form in front of them when the first
sensory test was to begin. The lab tech reentered the room with a cart holding 5 500mL beakers.
Each of the beakers were displayed by the lab tech in a line, 3 inches apart from each other, on
the table located at the front of the room. Every beaker contained 500mL of a different color
liquid that from left to right increased in depth of color from light yellow, yellow, chartreuse,
dark chartreuse, to emerald. Therefore the order of the precise beverages within each beaker
starting from the far left were Mountain Dairy Lemonade, Xtremo Citric Vibrante Gatorade, a
mix of 350mL Lemon Lime Gatorade and 150 mL Green Squall Powerade, Green Squall

Powerade, and Watermelon Gatorade, respectively. Atop each beaker was a film of plastic wrap.
If the panelists view of the displayed beakers was obstructed moving from their seat was
permitted. The participants were instructed to examine the beakers based on the predetermined
attributes of sweetness, sourness, artificiality, naturalness, prefer, and dislike. Pertaining to what
they perceived, the panelists first task was to rank each of the 5 liquids, 1 to 5, based on the
parameters just previously mentioned. For this test a 5 denoted most and a 1 least. Once that
chart was complete participants were to determine if they would drink each of the liquids. A yes
or no response was sufficient. If the panelists chose yes for a particular liquid they were further
inclined to specify at which temperature(s) the consumption of the chosen liquid(s) would be
acceptable. The temperature choices available ranged from cold, tepid, warm, to hot and the
participants were instructed to choose as many as were applicable. The seemingly extraneous
question of if the participants drank apple juice was also reported and recorded.
Evaluation of food products using descriptive terms
The panelists remained seated while the lab tech and lab assistants distributed bite-size
samples of the predetermined products in white 1 ounce samples. The participants were told to
refrain from beginning until each individual had all 4 of the separate food items. The selected
products presented within each sample were 2 goldfish, 2 raisins, 2 almonds, and 2 mini
marshmallows. For this test the participants were asked to evaluate each given item based on
appearance, aroma, flavor, texture, consistency, and mouthfeel using only the appropriate terms
listed on the sheet provided. The descriptive term sheet, formatted with charts, contained each
evaluation parameter as the heading and the appropriate term options listed below. The
participants completed Table A-1 on page 5 of their lab book with their chosen adjectives.
Paired Comparison Test

Each individual in the first seat of each row stood and approached the front of the room.
Once at the front table they proceeded to pour a scant amount of each of the samples into white 1
ounce cups. The cups were placed on a tray in two rows, separated by their respective arbitrary
sample codes of 635T1 or 573T2, and were dispersed to the other panelists in their row. Each
participant accepted 1 white cup of both samples. The participants objective was to determine
which liquid sample possessed a greater intensity of sourness. The panelists recorded their
decision in Table B-1 on page 6 of their lab book by listing the 2 sample codes and labeling each
as either greater or lesser intensity. The 635T1 sample liquid contained 0% citric acid and 573T2
sample liquid contained 1% citric acid.
Triangle Test
Once again the first individual in each row approached the front table and poured a scant
amount of each sample into white 1 ounce cups. The samples were placed on a tray in 3 rows,
separated by their respective, arbitrary sample codes of 777C1, 542E2, or 112H9, and passed out
each to the panelists. The participants were instructed to taste the 3 liquid samples
simultaneously and determine the odd sample. Odd, for this test, referred to the sample that
differed, while the 2 remaining were identical. Table C-1, on page 7 of the participants lab book,
was completed by listing the 3 sample codes in one column and identifying each as same or
different. The liquids of sample codes 777C1 and 542E2 were identical with both containing 0%
citric acid while sample liquid 112H9 contained 1% citric acid.
Ranking Test
Once more this test required the participant in the front seat of each row to pour a scant
amount of the selected products into white 1 ounce cups, placed the samples on the tray in 5

rows by their respective, arbitrary sample codes of 695F8, 495P2, 192L3, 543K8, or 555D7, and
distributed them to the panelists. The participants were given a specified order to try each of the
5 liquid samples and were instructed to rank them in descending order on the basis of intensity of
sourness. The most intense sample was ranked #1 and the least sour #5. The order of
consumption was sample 695F8 first, 495P2, 192L3, 543K8, and 555D7 was sampled last. The
participants recorded their ranking order in table D-1, under the first column with the heading
intensity, on page 8 of their lab book. The participants then ranked the samples again according
to preference with #1 denoting most preferred and #5 least. This order was recorded in the same
table in the second column with the heading preference.
Duo-Trio Test
The lab tech dispersed the first sample, referred to as the standard for this test, to the
panelists. The presented standard, a Nabisco Nilla Wafer sample code given 8175, was tasted and
eaten in its entirety by each of the participants. The test then proceeded with the lab tech and lab
assistant distributing 2 additional samples, given the arbitrary sample codes of 6104 and 1108, to
each participant. The second round of samples were consumed with the objective to identify
which of the 2 cookie samples differed from the standard presented first. Sample 6104 was a
First Street (Smart and Final) Vanilla Wafer and sample 1108 was identical to the standard, a
Nabisco Nilla Wafer. Once the differing sample was determined and recorded on the duo-tri test
sheet, the participants selected in their opinion what the major difference was. The differing
factors, offered by the instructor, for the participants to choose from were dryness, crunchiness,
or less vanilla. The selected term was also recorded on the participants form.
Scoring or Rating Test

This test once again required the first individual in each row to pour a scant amount of
each sample in white 1 ounce cups, placed on a tray in 3 rows in accordance of their arbitrary
sample code of 0110, 420M, or S723, and distributed to each of the panelists. Among the 3
samples presented, one was categorized as the reference sample, 0110 pertaining 2.5% citric
acid, and tasted first. The remaining two samples were evaluated next on the basis of sour
intensity. The reference sample was given an arbitrary score of 4 and the score for the remaining
2 samples, rated relative to the reference, was determined by the panelists. The scale constituted
a spectrum ranging 1 to 7 with 1, 2, and 3 representing more sour (1 most sour), 4 representing
the reference, and 5,6, and 7 representing less sour (7 least sour) than the reference. The
participants recorded their results by placing the sample code number next to the corresponding
rank on the test form. The liquid corresponding to sample 420M contained 1% citric acid and
S723 liquid pertained 5% citric acid.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics, in the form of percentages, was the methodology used to
demonstrate the results for each of the performed sensory evaluation tests.
Results
Color-Association Perception of Beverages
For the proceeding results, the 5 samples will be referred to by their given arbitrary names that
correspond with each beverages color. Mountain Dairy Lemonade is light yellow, Xtreme
Citrico Vibrante Gatorade is dark yellow, a solution of 350mL Lemon Lime Gatorade and 150mL
Green Squall Powerade is chartreuse, Green Squall Powerade is dark chartreuse, and Watermelon
Gatorade is emerald green.

Figure 1: Perceived descriptive parameters by Nutr 205 students for each beverage based on color
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
Percent distribution of Students assocaited each beverage with given parameter
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Sweetest

Perceived parameters for each colored beverage

Light Yellow

Dark Yellow

Dark Chartreuse

Emerald Green

Chartreuse

Figure 1 visually displays the percent distribution of how each colored beverage is
associated with the given descriptive parameter. On the basis of sweetness, the perceived
sweetest beverage was dispersed among all 5 colors with emerald green leading with 37.2%.
Next, the alleged sweetest beverage was light yellow with 25.5%, followed by both dark yellow
and dark chartreuse being selected by 15.1%. Lastly, 6.9% chose the chartreuse beverage as most
sweet.
For the next descriptive parameter, sourness, light yellow was ranked by more than half
the panelist, 54.6%, as most sour. 17.4% chose chartreuse and 12.7% selected dark yellow. Only
6.9% and 5.8% of the panelist chose dark chartreuse and emerald green, respectively as most
sour.
On the basis of artificiality the majority of the panelist, 80.2%, perceived emerald green
as most artificial while none (0%) associated this trait with the light yellow beverage. 10.4%
chose dark chartreuse, 6.9% selected dark yellow, and 2.3% associated chartreuse as most

artificial. On the other side of the spectrum, the vast majority of the participants, 96.5%,
perceived light yellow as most natural in appearance. The remaining 3.4% of the panelist
associated this parameter with emerald green.

Figure 2: Perceived Preference of prefer vs. dislike for each colored beverage by Nutr 205 students

Percent distribution of students ' prefer vs. dislike for ea ch

Preference
bevera ge Pa ra metes

Perceived Colore d Bevera ges

Prefer Mo st

Dislike Most

Figure 2 exhibits the percent distribution of how each colored beverage is associated with
the participants preference. Preference, for this test, was measured on both sides of the spectrum
with the parameters of prefer most and dislike most both being represented. The majority
preferred light yellow the most illustrated by 84.8% of the participants. The remaining 5.8%,
4.6%, and 3.4% was split between the chartreuse, dark yellow, and dark chartreuse, respectively.
None of the participants (0%) preferred emerald green most.
Staying congruent with these results, emerald green was the top choice, selected by
66.2% of the participants, as the most disliked beverage. Continuing this pattern, the other
beverage pertaining the most intense color, dark yellow, was disliked most by 15.1% of

participants. The percent distribution for the remaining 3 beverages was relatively even with
9.3% for dark chartreuse, 5.8% for light yellow, and 3.4% for the chartreuse sample.

Figure 3: Acceptance vs rejection of each colored beverage by Nutr 205 students

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Percent distribution of students accept vs reject each beverage color 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Light Yellow
Perceived colored beverages
Yes

No

Figure 3 graphically represents the approval rate of each beverage on the basis of color.
For each beverage the participants were given the option to accept it, yes they would consume it,
or reject it, no they would not ingest it. Light yellow received a widely held acceptance rate with
87.2% reporting yes to consumption and only 12.8% no. Emerald green on the other hand
illustrated a widely held rejection rate, 81.4% recording no on consumption while the
outstanding 18.6% of participants acknowledged consumption would be accepted. The results of
acceptance vs rejection for the chartreuse sample was split relatively evenly with 55.8% selecting
yes and 44.2% reporting no. The remaining two beverages, dark yellow and dark chartreuse, held
a slightly increased rejection rate from participants with 60.5% of panelist reporting no to
consumption of dark yellow, 39.5% yes. A similar value was reported for consumption of dark
chartreuse with 67.4% selecting no and 32.6% yes.

Figure 4: Temperat ure Preference for each consumed colored beverage by Nutr 205 student s

Percent distribution of Students consume each colored beverage at given termperature

Perceived beverage colors

Co ld

Tepid

Warm

Hot

Figure 4 visually depicts the accepted temperature for consumption of each beverage
on the basis of color. Cold was the temperature preference for each of the 5 beverages with 93%
of panelists selecting it for light yellow, 76.7% for dark yellow, 80.2% for chartreuse, 81.4% for
dark chartreuse, and 75.6% reported preference to consume emerald green cold. Tepid received a
low acceptance rate for each colored beverage represented by 14.0% reporting consumption for
light yellow, 7.0% for dark yellow, 11.6% for chartreuse, and 5.8% would consume both dark
chartreuse and emerald green at room temperature. The inverse relationship between increased
temperature and decreased acceptance across the board, for each sample color, continued with
14.0% approving consumption at a warm temperature for light yellow, 4.7% approval for both
dark yellow and chartreuse beverages, a scant 1.2% accepted emerald green to be consumed
warm, and none (0%) for dark chartreuse. The percent distribution, for most beverage colors,
further decreased with 9.3% accepting consumption of light yellow hot, 2.3% for chartreuse,

while participants reported both dark yellow and dark chartreuse as unacceptable at hot
temperatures, depicted by 0%. Emerald green, however, increased slightly to 3.5%.

Figure 5: Percent distribution of apple juice consumption

41%
59%

Yes

No

Figure 5 illustrates the relatively even percent distribution of participants who consume
apple juice, 59.3%, and those who do not, 40.7%.
Evaluation of food products using descriptive terms

Table 1: Top 3 descriptive terms selected by Nutr 205 students for

each specified characteristic of Goldfish evaluated

Table 1 portrays the top 3 selected terms for each of the evaluated sensory components of
Goldfish. It should be noted that during the evaluation alternative options were available

inhibiting the percent distribution among the table, for each characteristic, from reaching 100%.
Appearance was evaluated first with 29.1% selecting golden brown and an equal 25.5% selecting
both dry and grainy. The majority of participants, 70.1%, assessed the goldfish as salty while
16.9% chose sharp, and 7.8% believe it tasted flat. Crunchy and crisp lead as the descriptive
terms prevailing for Goldfish texture depicted by 45.5% and 44.2%, respectively and for
mouthfeel with 58.4% and 28.6%, respectively. The remaining texture detected was flaky by
5.2% of participants and the outstanding mouthfeel was gritty by 10.4%. No aroma and a burnt
scent tied with 31.3% of votes while flavory took a close second receiving 26.5%. The percent
distribution for consistency was 45.5% for brittle, 35.7% for cheezy, and 14.3% for thin.

Table 2: Top descriptive terms selected by Nutr 205 students for

each specified characteristic of Raisins

Table 2 represents the most prevalent chosen terms for every sensory evaluation of
Raisins. The selected descriptors for appearance were relatively evenly distributed with 25.9%
for sunken, 22.4% for dry, and 16.5% for sticky. The percent distribution for flavor, texture, and
aroma all had 2 leading terms perceived by the participants with the third pertaining to a minority
of the votes. Sweet, 47.6%, and Fruity, 36.9%, were the leading flavor profile while a scant
4.8% tasted a bitter flavor. 30.1% of participants detected a chewy texture, a close 26.5%
gummy, and less relevant 10.8% for lumpy. 38.8% sensed a fruity aroma, a similar 31.8%
smelled sweet, and a 2-way tie occurred between a mere 8.2% for burnt and nothing. Over half
the participants 58.6% designated the raisins consistency as chewy, a close 31% selected gummy,

and the remaining trait rubbery was chose by 7.1%. Similarly, the top nominated characteristic
for mouthfeel, sticky, received over half the votes depicted by 53.5% of the panelists, 13.1%
selected smooth, and another 2-way tie transpired between the raisin having a mouthfeel of slimy
and gritty.

Table 3: Top descriptive terms selected by Nutr 205 students for

each specified characteristic of Almonds

Table 3 displays the dominant terms evaluated for every corresponding characteristic for
Almonds. The results for appearance and texture were relatively evenly dispersed among the 3
primary descriptive terms with 29.9% perceiving almonds as appearing dry, 16.3% as rough, and
14% golden brown. This similar pattern for texture was distributed with 38.6% electing hard as
the leading descriptor, 19.3% selecting firm, and 13.3% sensing a crunchy texture. The vast
majority evaluated no aroma depicted by 94% of participants followed by a 3-way tie of a
meager 1.2% for burnt, sweet, and sour. An analogous configuration, to a lesser extent, was
illustrated in the percent distribution of flavor with the widely held descriptive term nutty being
chosen by 65.5% of the panelists. 19% and 14.3% evaluated a flat and stale flavor, respectively.
The sensory evaluation for consistency resulted in 2 leading selections of 47.6% deciding on
thick and 41.5% electing chewy, with the remaining term rubbery detected by 9.8%. Over half
the participants, 51.2%, perceived a crunchy mouth feel upon consumption of almonds, 34.5%
detected grittiness, and an equal 4.8% identified either a sticky or smooth mouthfeel.

Table 4: Top 3 descriptive terms selected by Nutr 205 students for

each specified characteristic of a mini marshmallow evaluated

Table 4 illustrates the top 3 terms assessed by the participants for each characteristic
when evaluating a miniature marshmallow. A prevailing descriptive term emerged, evident by the
high percent of participants, for the parameter of appearance, flavor, and aroma. 82.6% perceived
the marshmallow as having a puffy appearance and only 8.1% for smooth and 4.7% for dry. 76%
savored a sweet flavor, 17.3% floury, and 4% of participants chose flat. Sweet was also the
principal choice for aroma represented by 85.7% of participants, followed with 13.1% suspecting
no scent, and a scant 1.2% detecting a flowery aroma. The evaluation for texture was closely
dispersed between 29.7% perceiving the miniature marshmallow as springy and 25.7% as
gummy. The remaining evaluated texture of velvety depicted 13.5% of the panelists. 45.3%
elected the miniature marshmallow consistency as gummy, 28% as chewy, and 12% sense it as
rubbery. Just short of half, 49.3%, detected a smooth mouthfeel, 28% sticky, and 17.3%
distinguished the mouthfeel as slimy.
Paired Comparison Test

Figure 6: Percent distribution of Nutr 205 students perceiving the greater sour intensity sample
0% citric acid

1% citric acid

1% citric acid

0% citric acid

Figure 6 visually displays that 98% of the participants successfully detected the 1% citric
acid solution as most sour. The remaining 2 individuals falsely elected the apple juice sample of
0% citric acid.
Triangle Test

Figure 7: Percent distribution of selected odd sample by Nutr 205 strudents

3%

97%

0% citric acid

0% citric acid

1% citric acid

Figure 7 illustrates the majority of particpiants, 97%, accurately distinguished the odd
sample of 1% citric acid. The remaining 3% incorrectly selected one of the identical apple juice
samples constituting 0% citric acid.
Ranking Test

Figure 8: Ranking of apple juice samples, containing precise citric acid percentages, on perceived level of sour intensity by Nutr 205 students
5

Ranking of sour intensity from most (1) to least (5)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent distribution of students
0% Citric acid 1% Citric acid 2.5% Citric acid 5% Citric acid 10% Citric acid

Figure 8 graphically displays how well each participant was able to detect sour intensity
and subsequently rank each sample accordingly. The majority of the participants were able to
detect the differing quantities of citric acid amongst each sample and correctly rank them in
descending order. For example, the apple juice sample containing 10% citric acid was easily
distinguished as most sour, evidenced by 98% of the participants, while the remaining 2%
selected the 5% citric acid sample. The majority, 93%, identified the 5% citric acid as second
most sour with only 7% selecting 2.5% citric acid and 1% each selecting the 10% and 1% citric
acid solution for the second ranking. 87% of the participants were able to accurately detect the
2.5% citric acid solution for rank #3 while 5% of participants selected the 5% citric acid solution,
2% chose the 1% citric acid solution, and 1% of participants identified the 10% citric acid and

the 0% citric acid solution at a 3. 85% ranked the 1% citric acid solution at a 4, 9% dedicated it
to the 0% citric acid, and the last 5% perceived the 2.5% citric acid at this score. 91% of the
participants correctly identified the apple juice sample pertaining 0% citric acid as least sour
depicted by the ranking of 1. The remaining participants ranked the 1% citric acid and the 2.5%
citric acid solutions as least sour.

Figure 9: Ranking of apple juice samples, containing precise citric acid percentages, on preference by Nutr 205 students
5

0% Citricofacid
1% Citric
acid (1) 2.5%
Citric(5)acid3
Ranking
preference
from most
to least

5% Citric acid

10%Citric acid

1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent distribution of students

Figure 9 represents the ranking of the apple juice solutions, with added citric acid
percentages, based on the panelists preference. The results show an inverse relationship between
amount of citric acid present in the solution and preference. The greater the concentration of
citric acid, the least accepted.
Duo-Trio Test

Figure 10: Percent distribution able to identify sample that differed from the standard by Nutr 205 students
Nabisco Nilla Wafer; 9%

First Stree Vanilla Wafer; 91%

First Stree Vanilla Wafer Nabisco Nilla Wafer

Figure 10 illustrates 91% of participants were able to detect the cookie sample, the First
Street Vanilla Wafer, that differed from the standard presented first. However, 9% incorrectly
identified the Nabisco Nilla Wafer sample, identical to the standard cookie, as different.

Figure 11: Percent distribution of perceived differentiating factor between sample and standard
13%

55%

32%

Driness

Crunchiness

Less Vanilla

Figure 11 displays the leading differentiating characteristic between the sample and
standard cookie as less vanilla, represented by 55% of participants, followed by 32% selecting
crunchiness and 13% perceiving driness as the differing factor.
Scoring or Rating Test

Figure 12: Rating of sample's perceived sour intensity relative to reference sample of 2.5% citric acid assigned arbitrary score of 4 by Nutr 205 students
7
6
5
4 1% Citric acid
tric aci
Rating of sour intensi5%tyCifrom
mored (1) to less (7)
3
2
1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Percent dis tribution of students

Figure 12 depicts that all but 1% of the participants were able to successfully identify the
5% citric acid solution as more sour than the reference, illustrated by a rating less than 4, and
detect the 1% citric acid solution as less sour through a score greater than 4. 55% of participants
labeled the 5% citric acid as having a rating of 1, 41% a rating of 2, and 5% perceived the sour
intensity at a 3. 14% of the panelists depicted the 1% citric acid solution at a rating of either 7 or
5, the overwhelming majority elicited the sample with a rating of 6, and an outstanding 1%
incorrectly identified it with a rating of 3.

Discussion
This study shows that even though individuals were exposed to the same stimuli
and made evaluations eliciting the same 5 senses, the resulting perceptions were highly
individualized. This is in accordance with Steptos discovery of the 9 motivators of food
selection, which demonstrates that it is an array of factors that coordinate together to shape our
decisions. The results obtained from the Color Association Perception Beverage test visibly
illustrate the correlation between color, taste, and preference. The emerald green beverage, the
darkest of the colored samples, was perceived as most sweet, a finding consistent with Lawlesss
study of color on perceived sweetness of fruit juices. Emerald green sample was also found to be
the most artificial and the most disliked. While on the opposite side of the color spectrum the
light yellow was perceived as most natural and was preferred the most. These outcomes correlate
with Weis experiment on various shades of orange juice that concluded the color difference of a
product from its ideal, natural color had to be slight to be acceptable. The emerald green was
thought to be artificial, a drastic difference from the ideal shade, thus leading to the outcome of
the beverage not being widely accepted. The light yellow sample displayed the reverse of this,
being perceived as the most natural and consequently most preferred. Weis study, phase 2, had
similar results with the yellow saturated orange juices being perceived as fresher. The other three
colors had no noticeable distinctions falling somewhere in the middle with all parameters. For
the descriptive terms test the parameters of appearance, aroma, flavor, texture, consistency, and
mouthfeel were all deemed necessary to evaluate in order to form a clear perception of the
presented products. Similar to Pollards emphasis that to achieve sensory appeal all factors of
food characteristics must be taken into account. The paired comparison and triangle test resulted
in only 2% and 3% of participants selecting an incorrect sample, respectively. This small

variance may have stemmed from distractions in the testing room or individual mistakes such as
chewing gum, eating too prior before testing, or any other factor that would disrupt accuracy.
Participants for the most part were able to perceive the sour intensity and accurately rank the
sample in accordance with its percent citric acid. The preference ranking had an inverse
relationship with citric acid content displayed by the 10% citric acid sample receiving a 5
ranking of least preferred by 90% of the participants. The most preferred was the 0% citric acid
sample with 44% of participants providing insight that sweet or more neutral tastes appeal to the
senses more than intense astringency. The Duo-trio test also had a high success rate of 91%
correctly identifying the differing sample and the majority, 55% selected less vanilla as the major
difference. This result is in accordance with the fact that taste, out of all the senses, is the number
one influential factor on food selection. For the rating test only 1% rated the intensity of a sample
as more sour when relative to its percent citric acid content it was not. This small influx could
once again be a result of distraction during testing.
The key limitation that had the potential to disrupt every other component of the sensory
evaluation was the lack of a controlled environment. Rather than, as Lawless suggests, being
separated from other participants and extraneous noises avoided, the testing room consisted of
closely aligned desks and the occurrence of side conversations among the panelists throughout.
The testing room, though clean, contains an abundant amount of items, supplies, cooking
utensils, sinks, ovens, and other non-imperative testing items that were potential distractions. The
participants were all unskilled and for most this was their first exposure to sensory testing. This
for example, could negatively impact the descriptive test results if panelists were unaware of a
term or unable to decipher the difference between the characteristics being tested (i.e. texture vs
consistency vs mouthfeel). Again in reference to the uncontrolled environment but specifically

during the color association test participants had at times to relocate from their seat in order to
get a better view of the beaker samples. This lengthened the test time and is a possible annoyance
to other participants who were able to stay seated. Results for this test could have also been
influenced by the plastic film with collected condensation over the tops of each beaker that were
unappealing and made the samples appear old. Evaluation of sour intensity was a component of
several of the conducted tests and testing in such close quarters allowed for individuals face
expressions and responses to the sample to be seen by all other panelists. The majority of the
tests, all of which contained percent citric acid solutions were made up of apple juice. A food
aversion to this particular beverage could have impacted a significant amount of results. Results
could have been altered by the instructors inaccurate directions, in reference to ranking, stating
that a score of 1 denotes most when in actuality it represents least. Even after the mistake was
corrected some participants could have continued following the prior, incorrect instructions.
Another influential factor to the results was the method of data collection. Participants had to
publically share their data after every experiment potentially altering the result they chose to
disclose. Recommendations for future research would be a more suitable, professional setting for
the tests to be conducted in rather than a classroom full of potential disruptions. Separation or at
least increased distance between participants would be beneficial. Decreased interactions (i.e.
talking, moving around, exposure to others expressions) among the panelists to prevent
influences on results. Overall, sensory evaluation is a

References
Steptoe A, Pollard T M, Wardle J. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the
selection of food: the Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite. 1995; 25(3):267-284
Pollard J, Kirk S F L, and Cade J E. Factors affecting food choice in relation to fruit and
vegetable intake: a review. Nutrition Research Reviews. 2002; 15:373-387.
Stone H. Sensory evaluation from 1963 to present. Journal of Food Science. 2014; 79(1)
Nanette S. Effect of ambience on food intake and food choice. Nutrition. 2004; 20(9): 821-838
Lavin J G, Lawless H T. Effects of color and odor on judgements of sweetness among children
and adults. Food Quality and Preference. 1998; 9(4): 283-289
Keri McCrickerd K, Lucy Chambers L, Jeffrey M Brunstrom J M, and Martin R Yeomans M R.
Subtle changes in the flavour and texture of a drink enhance expectations of satiety
Flavour. 2012; 1:20
Waldron K W, Parker M L, Smith A C. Plant cell walls and food quality. Comprehensive
Reviews in Food science and safety. 2003; 6: 128-146

Wei S, Ou L, Luo R M, Hutchings J B. Optimisation of food expectations using product colour

and appearance. Food Quality and Preference. 2012; 23(1): 49-62
Lawless H T, Haymenn H. Sensory Evaluations of food: principles and practices. Springer
Science and Business Media; 2010