Methods for a deeper understanding of the sensory perception of fruit fillings

Food Hydrocolloids

Volumn 46, Issue , 2015, Pages 160-171

  Agudelo, A ^a   Varela, P ^a   Fiszman, S ^a  

^a INSTITUTO DE AGROQUÍMICA Y TECNOLOGÍA DE ALIMENTOS CSIC   (Spain)

Author keywords

CATA; Fruit gels; Sensory perception; TDS

Indexed keywords

COLLOIDS; FILLING; FOOD ADDITIVES; SENSORY PERCEPTION; STARCH;

CATA; FILLING SYSTEM; FRUIT GEL; MIXED SYSTEMS; ORAL PROCESSING; SEMI-SOLID SYSTEM; TAPIOCA STARCH; TEMPORAL DOMINANCE OF SENSATION; TEXTURAL FEATURE; WAXY CORN STARCH;

FRUITS;

MANIHOT ESCULENTA; ZEA MAYS;

EID: 84921319670     PISSN: 0268005X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2014.12.024     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Adams J., Williams A., Lancaster B., Foley M. Advantages and uses of check-all-that-apply response compared to traditional scaling of attributes for salty snacks. 7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, 12-16 August 2007, Minneapolis, USA 2007.
2. Agudelo A., Varela P., Fiszman S. Fruit fillings development: A multiparametric approach 2014.
3. Agudelo A., Varela P., Sanz T., Fiszman S.M. Native tapioca starch as a potential thickener for fruit fillings. Evaluation of mixed models containing low-methoxyl pectin. Food Hydrocolloids 2014, 35:297-304.
4. Agudelo A., Varela P., Sanz T., Fiszman S. Formulating fruit fillings. freezing and baking stability of a tapioca starch-pectin mixture model. Food Hydrocolloids 2014, 40:203-213.
5. Albert A., Salvador A., Schlich P., Fiszman S. Comparison between temporal dominance of sensations (TDS) and key-attribute sensory profiling for evaluating solid food with contrasting textural layers: fish sticks. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:111-118.
6. Antmann G., Ares G., Varela P., Salvador A., Coste B., Fiszman S. Consumers' creaminess concept perception: a cross-cultural study in three Spanish-speaking countries. Journal of Texture Studies 2011, 42:50-60.
7. Ares G., Dauber C., Fernández E., Giménez A., Varela P. Penalty analysis based on CATA questions to identify drivers of liking and directions for product reformulation. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:65-76.
8. Ares G., Deliza R., Barreiro C., Gimenez A., Gambaro A. Comparison of two sensory profiling techniques based on consumer perception. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(4):417-426.
9. Ares G., Varela P., Rado G., Giménez A. Are consumer profiling techniques equivalent for some product categories? The case of orange flavoured powdered drinks. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2011, 46:1600-1608.
10. Ares G., Varela P., Rado G., Giménez A. Identifying ideal products using three different consumer profiling methodologies. Comparison with external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:581-591.
11. Auerbach M., Craig S., Mitchell H. Bulking agents: multifunctional ingredients. Sweeteners and sucrose alternatives in food Technology 2008, 372-375. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK. H. Mitchell (Ed.).
12. Baiano A., Mastromatteo M., Del Nobile M.A. Effects of cultivar and process variables on dynamic-mechanical and sensorial behavior of value added grape-based smoothies. Molecules 2012, 17:11421-11434.
13. Basu S., Shivhare U.S. Rheological, textural, micro-structural and sensory properties of mango jam. Journal of Food Engineering 2010, 100:357-365.
14. Basu S., Shivhare U.S., Singh T.V. Effect of substitution of stevioside and sucralose on rheological, spectral, color and microstructural characteristics of mango jam. Journal of Food Engineering 2013, 114:465-476.
15. Bruzzone F., Ares G., Giménez A. Temporal aspects of yoghurt texture perception. International Dairy Journal 2013, 29:124-134.
16. Cadena R.S., Cruz A.G., Netto R.R., Castro W.F., Faria J.D.A.F., Bolini H.M.A. Sensory profile and physicochemical characteristics of mango nectar sweetened with high intensity sweeteners throughout storage time. Food Research International 2013, 54:1670-1679.
17. Chen J. Food oral processing. A review. Food Hydrocolloids 2009, 23:1-25.
18. DeMars L., Ziegle G.R. Texture and structure of gelatin/pectin-based gummy confections. Food Hydrocolloids 2001, 15:643-653.
19. Dervisi P., Lamb J., Zabetakis I. High pressure processing in jam manufacture: effects in textural and colour properties. Food Chemistry 2001, 73:85-91.
20. Dooley L., Lee Y.S., Meullenet J.F. The application of check-all-thatapply (CATA) consumer profiling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its comparison to classical external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:394-401.
21. Foster K.D., Grigor J., Cheong J.N., Yoo M.J.Y., Bronlund J.E., Morgenstern M.P. The role of oral processing in dynamic sensory perception. Journal of Food Science 2011, 76(2):49-61.
22. Grujić S., Grujić R., Poljašević J. Effect of food additives on sensory characteristics of thermo-stable marmalade. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities 2010, 13(2):11. Website. http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume13/issue2/art-11.html.
23. Hicsasmaz Z., Yazgan Y., Bozoglua F., Katnas Z. Effect of polydextrose-substitution on the cell structure of the high-ratio cake system. LWT-Food Science and Technology 2003, 36:441-450.
24. Labbe D., Schlich P., Pineau N., Gilbert F., Martin N. Temporal dominance of sensations and sensory profiling: a comparative study. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:216-221.
25. Lado J., Vicente E., Manzzioni A., Ares G. Application of a check-all-thatapply question for the evaluation of strawberry cultivars from a breeding program. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2010, 90:2268-2275.
26. Laguna L., Varela P., Salvador A., Fiszman S. Anew sensory tool to analyse the oral trajectory of biscuits with different fat and fibre content. Food Research International 2012, 51:544-553.
27. Lenfant F., Loret C., Pineau N., Hartmann C., Martin N. Perception of oral food breakdown. The concept of sensory trajectory. Appetite 2009, 52:659-667.
28. Manoukian E.B. Mathematical nonparametric statistics 1986, Gordon & Breach, New York.
29. Melo L.L.M.M., Bolini H.M.A., Efraim P. Sensory profile, acceptability, and their relationship for diabetic/reduced calorie chocolates. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:138-143.
30. Meyners M., Castura J., Carr T. Existing and new approaches for the analysis of CATA data. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:309-319.
31. Moskowitz H., Hartmann J. Consumer research: creating a solid base for innovative strategies. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2008, 19(11):581-589.
32. Nabors L.O. Alternative sweeteners: an overview. Alternative sweeteners 2001, Marcel Dekker, New York. L.O. Nabors (Ed.).
33. Pascua I., Koç H., Foegeding A. Food structure: roles of mechanical properties and oral processing in determining sensory texture of soft materials. Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 2013, 18:324-333.
34. Pineau N., Goupil de Bouillé A., Lepage M., Lenfant F., Schlich P., Martin N., et al. Temporal dominance of sensations: what is a good attribute list?. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26:159-165.
35. Pineau N., Schlich P., Cordelle S., Mathonniere C., Issanchou S., Imbert A., et al. Temporal dominance of Sensations: construction of the TDS curves and comparison with time-intensity. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:450-455.
36. Prakash I., DuBois G.E., Clos J.F., Wilkens K.L., Fosdick L.E. Development of rebiana, a natural, non-caloric sweetener. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2008, 46:S75-S82.
37. Renard D., van de Velde F., Visschers R.W. The gap between food gel structure, texture and perception. Food Hydrocolloids 2006, 20:423-431.
38. Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics 1995, Duxbury Press, Belmont. 4th ed.
39. Saint-Eve A., Deleris I., Panouillé M., Dakowski F., Cordelle S., Schlich P., et al. How texture influences aroma and taste perception over time in candies. Chemosensory Perception 2011, 4(1-2):32-41.
40. deSouza V.R., Pereira P.A.P., Pinheiro A.C.M., Bolini H.M.A., Borges S.V., Queiroz F. Analysis of various sweeteners in low-sugar mixed fruit jam: equivalent sweetness, time-intensity analysis and acceptance test. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 2013, 48:1541-1548.
41. Szczesniak A.S. Texture is a sensory property. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13:215-225.
42. Valentin D., Chollet S., Lelievre M., Abdi H. Quick and dirty but still pretty good: a review of new descriptive methods in food science. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2012, 47:1563-1578.
43. Van Kleef E., Van Trijp H.C.M., Luning P. Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: a critical review of methods and techniques. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:181-201.
44. Van Vliet T., van Aken G.A., de Jongh H.H.J., Hamer R.J. Colloidal aspects of texture perception. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 2009, 150:27-40.
45. Varela P., Ares G. Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Research International 2012, 48:893-908.
46. Varela P., Pintor A., Fiszman S. How hydrocolloids affect the temporal oral perception of ice cream. Food Hydrocolloids 2014, 36:220-228.
47. Wei Y.P., Wang C.S., Wu J.S.B. Flow properties of fruit fillings. Food Research International 2001, 34:377-381.
48. Zhao L., Tepper B.J. Perception and acceptance of selected high-intensity sweeteners and blends in model soft drinks by propylthiouracil (PROP) non-tasters and super-tasters. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:531-540.