Improving the prediction for sensory texture attributes for multicomponent snack bars by optimizing instrumental test conditions

Journal of Texture Studies

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 358-380

  Greve, Patrick ^a   Lee, Young Seung ^b   Meullenet, Jean Francois ^c   Kunz, Benno ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^b Nong Shim Co   (South Korea)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Deformation rate; Optimizing instrumental tests; Prediction; Sensory; Snack bar; Texture

Indexed keywords

DEFORMATION RATES; OPTIMIZING INSTRUMENTAL TESTS; PREDICTION; SENSORY; SNACK BAR;

BENDING (DEFORMATION); CYLINDERS (SHAPES); FORECASTING; FRACTURE MECHANICS; HARDNESS; OPTIMIZATION; PROBES; RATING; TEXTURES;

TESTING;

EID: 77955834541     PISSN: 00224901     EISSN: 17454603     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-4603.2010.00229.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Ahmad S, Vashney AK, Srivasta PK. Quality attributes of fruit bar made from papaya and tomato by incorporating hydrocolloids. Int. J. Food Prop. 2005, 8:89-99.
2. Anton AA, Luciano FB. Instrumental texture evaluation of extruded snack foods: A review. Cienc Technol. Aliment. 2007, 5:245-251.
3. AzäS J-M, Druilhet P. Optimality of neighbour balanced designs when neighbour effects are neglected. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 1997, 64:353-367.
4. Bourne MC. Food Texture and Viscosity: Concept and Measurement 2002, 2nd, Ed, Academic Press, New York, NY
5. Boustani P, Mitchell VW. Cereal bars: A perceptual, chemical and sensory analysis. Br. Food J. 1990, 92:17-22.
6. Bower JA. Statistics for food science IV: Two-sample tests. Nutr. Food Sci. 1997, 97:39-43.
7. Bower JA, Whitten R. Sensory characteristics and consumer liking for cereal bar snack foods. J. Sens. Stud. 2000, 15:327-345.
8. Boyd R. A study of force-compression conditions associated with hardness evaluation in several foods. J. Texture Studies 1975, 6:507-522.
9. Breuil P, Meullenet JF. A comparison of three instrumental tests for predicting sensory texture profiles of cheese. J. Texture Studies 2001, 32:41-55.
10. Brisske LK, Lee SY, Klein BP, Cadwallader KR. Development of a prototype high-energy, nutrient-dense food product for emergency relief. J. Food Sci. 2004, 69:361-367.
11. Castro-Prada EM, Primo-Martin C, Meinders MBJ, Hamer RJ, Van Vliet T. Relationship between water activity, deformation speed, and crispness characterization. J. Texture Studies 2009, 40:127-156.
12. Training of Assessors for Sensory Analysis 1996, DIN 10961, Beuth Publishers, Berlin, Germany
13. Sensory Analysis - Investigation of Profiles - Part 1: Conventional Profiling 1999, DIN 10967-1, Beuth Publishers, Berlin, Germany
14. Sensory Analysis - Investigation of Profiles - Part 4: Testing Plans 2002, DIN 10967-4, Beuth Publishers, Berlin, Germany
15. Duizer L. A review of acoustic research for studying the sensory perception of crisp, crunchy and crackly textures. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2001, 12:17-24.
16. Duizer LM, Campanella OH, Barnes GRG. Sensory, instrumental and acoustic characteristics of extruded snack food products. J. Texture Studies 1998, 29:397-411.
17. 2009, http://www.bdsi.de/de/zahlen_fakten/iri_suesswarenmonitor.html, INFORMATION RESOURCES GMBH, Süßwarenmonitor 7.1, (accessed July 1, 2009).
18. Kapsalis JG, Moskowitz HR. Views on relating instrumental tests to sensory assessment of food texture - applications to product development and improvement. J. Texture Studies 1978, 9:371-393.
19. Lee YS, Owens CM, Meullenet JF. Novel laser air puff and shape profile method for predicting tenderness of broiler breast meat. Poult. Sci. 2008, 87:1451-1457.
20. Macfie HJH, Bratchell N. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. J. Sens. Stud. 1989, 4:129-148.
21. Macfie HJH, Hedderley D. Current practice in relating sensory perception to instrumental measurements. Food Qual. Prefer. 1993, 4:41-49.
22. Meullenet JF, Xiong R, Findlay CJ. Multivariate and Probabilistics Analyses of Sensory Science Problems 2008, Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA
23. Moskowitz HR. Correlating sensory and instrumental measures in food texture. Cereal Foods World 1977, 22:232-237.
24. Peleg M. Role of specimen dimensions in uniaxial compression of food materials. J. Food Sci. 1977, 42:649-651.
25. Ravi R, Roopa BS, Bhattacharya S. Texture evaluation by uniaxial compression of some snack foods. J. Texture Studies 2007, 38:135-152.
26. Sesmat A, Meullenet JF. Prediction of rice sensory texture attributes from a single compression test, multivariate regression, and a stepwise model optimization method. J. Food Sci. 2001, 66:124-131.
27. Shama F, Sherman P. Evaluation of some textural properties of foods with the Instron universal testing machine. J. Texture Studies 1973, 4:344-352.
28. Sherman P, Deghaidy FS. Force-deformation conditions associated with the evaluation of brittleness and crispness in selected foods. J. Texture Studies 1978, 9:437-459.
29. Szczesniak AS. Correlations between objective and sensory texture measurements. Food Technol. 1968, 22:981-985.
30. Szczesniak AS. Correlating sensory with instrumental texture measurements - an overview of recent developments. J. Texture Studies 1987, 18:1-15.
31. Szczesniak AS. Texture is a sensory property. Food Qual. Prefer. 2002, 13:215-225.
32. Thybo AK, Nielsen M, Martens M. Influence of uniaxial compression rate on rheological parameters and sensory texture prediction of cooked potatoes. J. Texture Studies 2000, 31:25-40.
33. Trant AS, Pangborn RM, Little AC. Potential fallacy of correlating hedonic responses with physical and chemical measurements. J. Food Sci. 1981, 46:583-588.
34. Voisey PW. Selecting deformation rates in texture tests. J. Texture Studies 1975, 6:253-257.
35. Wium H, Gross M, Qvist KB. Uniaxial compression of UF-Feta cheese related sensory texture analysis. J. Texture Studies 1997, 28:455-476.
36. Xiong R, Meullenet JF, Hankins JA, Chung WK. Relationship between sensory and instrumental hardness of commercial cheeses. J. Food Sci. 2002, 67:877-883.