Making Sense of the Senses

Perception of Food Quality and Consumer Acceptability

Nutrition 205
Jennifer Axford
October 27, 2014

Abstract: This study aims to illustrate the importance of sensory evaluation to various
industries related to food and consumption. In order to fully understand the impact that
sensory testing has on food related industries and consumers themselves, it is necessary
to conduct tests designed to evaluate the human senses in regard to consumer preference
and acceptability as they relate to food and beverage products and to be able to interpret
the results based on these tests. Therefore, Foods and Nutrition majors at San Diego State
University conducted some of the more common tests utilized by these and other
industries, which include Association of Color in Beverages, Paired Comparison,
Triangle, Ranking, Scoring/Ranking, Duo-Trio, and Evaluation Using Descriptive Terms,
in the Introduction to the Science of Food laboratory. Results of these tests suggest that
the human senses influence perceived characteristics of food and beverage products. This
report also aims to identify sources of error for improved methods of testing.

Introduction
Consumer acceptability of food and beverage products is influenced by many factors
such as culture, ethnicity, religion and climate, among others. However, the ultimate
criterion used to evaluate food quality characteristics such as appearance, texture, taste,
and aroma is the degree of appeal to human sensory organs (Brown 2015). Several
industries have particular interest in evaluating consumer perceptions based on the senses
such as restaurant, health, nutrition, biotechnology, agriculture and food manufacturing
industries, to name a few. Evaluation of the senses with regard to food and beverage
acceptability can be determined using various subjective tests and methods, each of
which have their own advantages and disadvantages. While humans utilize all five senses
when determining which foods to consume, most often sight is the initial impression
received. The shape, size, serving size, consistency and color of foods are factors that are
based on visual perception. Of these, color is often the first sensory attribute consumers
use to judge the acceptability of a food or beverage and they may react negatively to a
product if its color does not meet expectations. For example, 342 untrained panelists with
a minimum age of 18 years were asked to rate two room temperature orange juice
samples, one of which was unadulterated and another that was the exact same orange
juice but with green food coloring added. While the food coloring did not affect the
flavor it did impart a slight but noticeable green hue. Results demonstrated that while
slight variation in color reduced consumer acceptance of the adulterated sample, it had
little influence on the ratings of flavor, sweetness or overall liking (Tepper 1992). Judging

food by its appearance allows humans to not only select products based on expectations
and personal preference, but also indicates whether or not a food is ripe or safe to eat.
Smell also plays an important role in food selection and acceptability. It not only
determines whether or not a food is selected for consumption, but has the unique ability
to stimulate the appetite. Chemosensory signals trigger salivary, gastric, pancreatic and
intentional secretions, which prepare the body for digestion. Just as importantly, smell
and taste initiate and terminate ingestion, which plays a significant role in the quantity of
food that is eaten. Research on the elderly suggests that a reduction in the sense of smell
due to aging can lead to poor appetite, inappropriate food choices and decreased energy
consumption, which can be linked to impaired immunity (Schiffman and others 2000).
While smell can stimulate the appetite and may determine how much food will be
consumed, taste is usually the most influential factor in a persons selection of foods
(Drewnowski 1997). Taste is dependent on the taste buds, which are distributed along the
underside, sides, and tip of the tongue and also on the mouth plates and pharynx. Taste
includes five basic types, which are sweet, sour, bitter, salty and umami (savory). Factors
that affect taste include genetics, temperature of the food or beverage, age, sex and degree
of hunger of the taster (Goff 2007), time of day the food is eaten, and interactions
between components, to name a few. A study that assessed the degree of reduction in
sodium that could be made without drastically changing the perception of saltiness or
decreasing the acceptability of a food item illustrates a few of these relationships. The
experiment involved 190 military and civilian volunteers who were randomly selected to
participate. Eight different military entrees were chosen for the experiment and for each a
low-sodium version was developed at a reduction of 60% to 90%. Subjects were

instructed to rate a small sample of one of the eight military entrees and then a second
sample with a different sodium level than the first. Results demonstrated that perceived
saltiness was much lower for most of the low-sodium entrees. Acceptance ratings were
also drastically reduced for the lower sodium versions. Interestingly, perception differed
for two of the entrees even though the sodium amounts were approximately the same,
suggesting that the concentration of sodium is not the only factor that determines the
perception of saltiness. Other factors that could influence perception include fat content,
spices and perhaps even the physical arrangement of the food (Adams 1995). The sense
of touch, through the hands and/or the mouth help to convey a foods consistency,
temperature, Chemithesis (the impression of a temperature), astringency, and texture. In
an effort to reduce the fat content of short-dough biscuits while maintaining acceptable
texture, an experiment attempted to replace shortening with a new, low-fat ingredient, NDulge (ND). Because reducing fat content was demonstrated to negatively affect biscuit
texture resulting in a substantial increase in hardness and crunchiness and a significant
decrease in crumbliness, the biscuit texture was balanced by replacing some of the flour
with concentrations of resistant starch (RS). Sensory analysis was then conducted on
both trained and untrained panelists. Results illustrated that the addition of the RS
successfully balanced the hardness and crunchiness caused by the substitution of
shortening with ND and increased crumbliness and overall consumer acceptability
(Laguna and others 2011). Finally, sounds can influence perception of gustatory
properties of food, texture (crunchiness) and overall acceptance. Participants of a study
consumed different foods while listening to either loud or quiet background white noise
or no sound at all. They were then asked to rate the foods in terms of saltiness, sweetness

and overall liking or in terms of crunchiness, overall flavor and liking. The flavors
(sweetness and saltiness) of the foods were reported to be significantly lower in the loud
vs. the quiet environment while crunchiness was scored as being more intense. These
results suggest that properties of food that are not related to sound (saltiness, sweetness)
in addition to those that are (crunchiness) are differentially affected by background noise.
Specifically, background noise reduces gustatory properties in food while enhancing food
crunchiness (Woods and others 2010). In essence, all five senses are used to determine a
foods quality, acceptance and desirability.
As suggested, methods to evaluate the human senses include analytical (effective)
and affective (acceptance or preference) tests. Analytical tests, such has Duo-Trio and
Paired Comparison are used to evaluate discernable differences and are more objective
than affective tests. Affective tests are used to evaluate individual preferences. These
types of tests are generally conducted on large groups of untrained consumers and are
used to determine whether a specific population prefers one product over another.
Conversely, analytical tests are generally carried out on smaller groups who may include
trained and/or untrained individuals. These tests usually involve the use of simple
questions such as which of the beverage samples did you prefer? - to more in-depth
hedonic product score sheets that evaluate products on a scale or range of preferences
from, for example, prefer the most to dislike the most. Descriptive Analysis methods can
also be used and can benefit additional sectors of the food industry such as farmers and
growers. For example, a study employing sensory analysis of several varieties of fresh
figs aimed to develop a set of descriptive terms to describe appearance and flavor profiles
in order to improve communication between fig retailers, consumers and growers. Twelve

trained panelists (8 females and 4 males) with a mean age of 24 years were selected to
participate. Panelists rated external attributes based on appearance and texture and
internal attributes based on appearance, aroma, texture, taste and aftertaste. Some
descriptive terms used to describe these attributes included, but were not limited to,
smooth, hairy, waxy, high anchor, low anchor, small, large, brown, blue, striped, spotted,
fruity, citrus, chocolate, spicy, earthy woody, etc. Results concluded that sensory
attributes varied significantly between the fig cultivar-source. In addition, more
descriptions describing flavor were used than for aroma. This implies that the flavor
perceptions are more intense and/or complex than the aromas (King 2012).

Methods
Environment
Several tests designed for sensory evaluation were conducted using a variety of
food and beverage products. The sensory tests were conducted in the Introductory to
Science of Food laboratory of the Foods and Nutrition program at San Diego State
University, located at 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, California 92115. The
laboratory is located on the second floor of the West Commons building in room 203. It is
well lit, clean and organized. The panelists who participated in sensory testing were
divided into four (4) different sections of approximately 20 students who each sat in a
separate desk facing the front of the room. The tests were conducted in sections 1, 2 and 3
on Monday, September 22, 2014 and in Section 4 on Tuesday, September 23, 2014.
Section 1 began sensory testing at 9:00 am while sections two and three began their
sensory data collection at 1:00 and 4:00 pm, respectively. Section four conducted their
testing at 1:00 pm.

The following demographic information was conducted amongst the panelists prior to
participating in any sensory testing procedures. The specific questions were asked by the
instructor, L. Copp et al to the entire group and were answered by a show of hands by the
individual panelists. During the question regarding the age of participants, the panelists
closed their eyes to retain anonymity amongst the panelists. An assistant for Copp et al
recorded the data into a spreadsheet for later review.

Demographics
The panelists consisted of 89 (N=89) untrained San Diego State University Foods and
Nutrition students divided into four separate sections. Section one consisted of 22
students between the ages of 18 and 39. Three panelists had allergies which included one
or many of the following: chocolate, dairy, eggs, meat, poultry, milk protein and/or
wheat.
Section two contained 22 panelists total from 19 to over 40. Two people had
allergies; one was allergic to wheat while the other was allergic to fish.
In section three there were 23 panelists total, one of whom participating was from
the 2013/2014 semester. Four panelists had allergies, which may have included dairy,
fish, MSG, Shellfish and/or nuts.
Section four contained 22 panelists which included two participants with allergies,
one of whom was allergic to milk protein and the other allergic to green melon.

All participants in each section were undergraduate students and only one person
was a smoker, who was in section four.

Totals
Percent distribution totals for all four sections were as follows: 1% of the total
panelists were 18 years of age, 3% were 19, 18% were 20 and 18% also reported being
21. Those who were 22 accounted for 17% of the total while 23 year-olds accounted for
12%. Eight percent of the panelists were 24 years of age as were 25 year olds. Twenty-six
year-old accounted for 3% of the total as well as those who were 27 years of age. Twentyeight year-olds accounted for only 1% in addition to 29 year olds only accounting for a
total of 1%. Finally, 3% of the total panelists were ages 30-39 and a 2% were age 40 or
older.
Males accounted for 16% of the total participants while 84% were female. Of
these, 89% reported to be single, 9% married and a mere 2% reported being divorced.
All participants (100%) reported being Foods and Nutrition majors in addition to being
undergraduates. Their living situations were reported as follows: only 3% live alone, 24%
live with one other person and the majority, 73% reported as having two or more
roommates.

Sensory Tests
Association of Color in Beverages with Sourness, Sweetness, and Preference
This test was set up by the lab assistant, Sharon, who displayed 5 beakers
containing different color liquids on the workstation in the front of the laboratory. The

color of liquids in the beakers increased in depth from left to right, with the palest yellow
being on the left and the darkest green being on the far right. The participants were
instructed to look at each beverage sample and make a determination of several
parameters, including sweetness, sourness, artificiality and naturalness, prefer, dislike, at
what temperature would they drink it and would they drink it? Panelists were instructed
to fill in a worksheet a number ranging from 5 to 1 corresponding to each parameter
printed in the left hand column of a chart. A number 5 indicated most and 1 indicated
least. The color descriptions were printed across the top row of the chart, which listed
them as light yellow, dark yellow, chartreuse, dark chartreuse and emerald green. Once
all panelists had completed filling out their charts, Copp et al then asked the participants
by a show of hands, how they ranked each parameter. The question asking at what
temperature would the panelists drink the beverage specified whether they would drink it
hot, warm, tepid or cold and the question of whether or not they would drink it required a
simple yes or no, also collected by a show of hands. The findings were recorded by the
assistant in a spreadsheet for later review.

Duo-Trio
While participants remained seated, the lab technician, Sharon, walked around the
classroom and delivered one standard and two samples of wafer cookies to participants
atop their score sheets, for a total of three (3) wafers. Once all participants had all three
wafers, they were instructed by the instructor, Copp et al to taste each sample and then
determine which sample differed from the standard. They were instructed to record their
answer on a score sheet, using a randomized code, and then determine which adjective -

10

dryness, crunchiness or less vanilla, was the major difference in the sample that differed
from the standard. Panelists were instructed to record this adjective on the same score
sheet as the previous question. Results of this test were collected by a show of hands and
then recorded by the assistant in a spreadsheet for later review.

Scoring or Rating Test

Panelists were given three samples of a liquid, which included one reference and two
samples. They were instructed to determine which of the samples was more sour and
which sample was less sour than the reference. The samples were poured and distributed
by the first person in each of the participants row in 1oz paper cups that contained a
scant amount of the sample liquid. Once delivered, the panelists were instructed to keep
the samples separate by placing the correct sample under the corresponding random code
which was printed on a piece of paper on their desk. The panelists were then instructed to
taste the reference sample first, then taste the additional two samples and score, using a
the same score sheet, which sample was more sour, which sample was less sour, and by
how much, determined by a number scale of 1-7, which had the reference sample set at
the arbitrary score of 4. The more sour sample would be given a score of 3, 2, or 1 with 1
being the most sour and the less sour sample would be given a 5, 6, or 7 with 7 being the
least sour. The random sample number was recorded next to the corresponding number
and the results were collected by a show of hands. The results of this test were collected
by a show of hands and then recorded by the assistant in a spreadsheet for later review.

11

Ranking
This sensory test involved five (5) beverage samples in five (5) separate 1oz paper
cups using the method described above. The panelists were instructed to rank the samples
using their individual random codes in Table D-1 on page 8 of their Understanding Food
Principles and Preparation Lab Manual. The samples would be ranked in descending
order of intensity with the most intense sample ranked #1. The panelists were then
instructed taste each sample again and rank each according to preference using the same
method above. Results were collected by a show of hands and were recorded in a
spreadsheet for later review.

Paired Comparison
Two similar beverage samples identified by random codes were presented to the
panelists in 1oz paper cups using the methods described by the Scoring test. The
participants were asked to taste both samples and determine which sample had the greater
level of sourness. Results were recorded in a table on page six of their lab manuals and
results were collected using the same method as described above.

Triangle
Three samples of a beverage were distributed to each participant using the same
method as described above. Two of the samples were identical while one was different.
Each sample was identified by a random code chosen by the instructor. The participants
were asked to taste all three samples and determine which sample was different than the
other two samples. They were asked to record their findings in a table on page 7 of their

12

lab manuals using the samples random code. Results were collected using the same
method described above.

Evaluation of Food Products Using Descriptive Terms

The lab assistant distributed assortments of bite-sized food products to the
panelists in 2oz paper sample cups. Participants were instructed to evaluate the
appearance, aroma, flavor, texture, consistency and mouthfeel of the samples using
various descriptive terms, which were listed on a sheet of paper in a table under the
appropriate heading for each sample. Panelists recorded their selections in a table on page
5 of their lab manuals. Results were collected using the same methods described in the
previous tests.

Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics such as averages, percents and descriptive terms were
utilized to demonstrate the results of the above-mentioned sensory data surveys.

Results
Association of Color in Beverages with Sourness, Sweetness, Artificiality,
Preference, and Temperature
Sourness vs. Sweetness: A majority of those surveyed (44%) chose the lightest
colored beverage, Mountain Dairy Lemonade, as the most sour, while 39% selected the
darkest colored beverage, Watermelon Gatorade, as the sweetest. Additional results did
not follow any particular pattern, however, with a relative equal distribution of panelists

13

selecting the remaining three beverages as either the sweetest or most sour. Complete
results to this test can be reviewed in Figure 1.

Distribu onof VotesforSweetestvs. MostSour Beverage

Percep onof Sweetestvs. MostSourBeverageBasedonColorof Sample

44%
3%

20%

Most Sour
Sweetest

18%

16%
19%

39%
10%

Mountain Dairy
Lemonade

17%

Xtremo Citrico
Vibrante Gatorade

Lemon Lime
Gatorade/Green
Squall Powerade

13%

Green Squall
Powerade

Watermelon
Gatorade

BeverageSamplesinorderof LightesttoDarkestfromLe toRight

Figure 1

Most Natural vs. Most Artificial: Results of this sensory evaluation demonstrated
that the vast majority of the panelists (94%) perceived the light yellow beverage, which
was later revealed to be Mountain Dairy Lemonade, as the most natural of the five
beverage samples. As expected then, the majority (85%) of the panelists chose the
emerald colored beverage, which was subsequently revealed to be Watermelon flavored
Gatorade, as the most artificial looking. The results also demonstrated that the panelists
perceived the darker/deeper/more vibrant colored beverages as the most artificial and the
paler/lighter/less vibrant colored beverages as the most natural. Refer to Figure 2 for
complete results.

14

Figure 2

Most Preferred vs. Dislike the Most: When asked what beverages the panelists
preferred the most based on visual assessment, a majority (69%) of those surveyed
selected Mountain Dairy Lemonade based on its light yellow color. Conversely, more
than half of the panelists (55%) selected the darkest colored beverage, Watermelon
Gatorade, as the beverage they disliked the most. A very small percentage of panelists
(2%) selected the Mountain Dairy Lemonade as their most disliked beverage while the
same number of participants (2%) selected the darkest beverage, Watermelon Gatorade,
as their most preferred. Results varied regarding the remaining three beverage samples,
with a relatively large sample selecting the next brightest yellow beverage, Xtremo
Citrico Vibrante Gatorade as their most disliked beverage. Refer to Figure 3 for detailed
results.

15

Distribu onof VotesforPreferv. DisliketheMost

Percep onof theMostPreferredBeveragevs. DisliketheMost BasedonColorof Sample

2%

69%
DisliketheMost
26%

Prefer the Most

2%

8%
Mountain Dairy
Lemonade

11%

55%
8%
9%

Xtremo Citrico
VibranteGatorade

Lemon Lime
Gatorade/Green
Squall Powerade

2%
Green Squall
Powerade

Watermelon
Gatorade

BeverageSamplesinorderfromLightesttoDarkestfromLe toRight

Figure 3

Acceptance vs. Rejection of Beverages: The majority of the total students

surveyed stated that they would drink all five beverages cold, with 82% voting for
Mountain Dairy Lemonade, 94% the Xtremo Citrico Vibrante Gatorade, 92% Lemon
Lime Gatorade/Green Squall Powerade mixture, 90% Green Squall Powerade and 91% of
panelists stating they would drink the Watermelon Gatorade cold. Only a very small
percentage of panelists stated that they would drink any of the five beverages any
temperature other than cold, which included the options of tepid, warm, or hot. Complete
results are demonstrated in Figure 4.

16

Distribu onof VotesforWhetherornotPanelistswouldConsumeBeverage

Acceptancevs. Rejec onof BeverageBasedonColorof Sample

9%
52%

43%

48%

78%

91%
48%

57%

52%
22%

No
Yes

BeveragesinOrderof Lightest toDarkest fromLe toRight

Figure 4

Preferred Temperature of Consumption of Beverages: Results demonstrated that

there was a relatively even distribution of panelists (approximately 50%) who either
would or would not drink the five beverages, with the exception of the Mountain Dairy
Lemonade (the lightest colored beverage) and the Watermelon Gatorade (the darkest
colored beverage). The majority of the student panel (91%) said they would drink the
Mountain Dairy Lemonade while only 9% said they wouldnt. A total of 78% of the
panelists said they would not drink the Watermelon Gatorade while only 22% said they
would. More detailed results are depicted in Figure 5.

17

Temperatureat whichPanelistswouldPrefertoConsumeBeverageBasedonColorof
Sample
94%

92%

91%

90%

Distribu onof VotesforTemperaturePreference

82%

Cold
Tepid
Warm
Hot
6%

9%
4%

5%

Mountain Dairy
Lemonade

5%

1%

6%

8%
2%

2%

1%

1%

Xtremo Citrico
Lemon Lime Gatorade/ Green Squall Powerade Watermelon Gatorade
Vibrante Gatorade Green Squall Powerade
BeveragesSamplesinorderfromLightesttoDarkestfromLe toRight

Figure 5

Paired Comparison
All but one panelist correctly identified the most sour sample, a 1% citric
acid/apple juice solution from the standard, which was plain apple juice. Results are
depicted in Figure 6.

18

Distribu onof VotesIden fyingMost Sour Sample

(PairedComparison)
0%Citric Acid
1%

1%Citric Acid

99%

Figure 6

Triangle Test
All but one participant was able to identify the odd sample, which was a 1% citric
acid/apple juice solution compared to plain apple juice being the matching samples
tested. Figure 7 demonstrates this result.

Distribu onof VotesIden fyingOddSample

(TriangleTest)
0%Citric Acid
1%

0%Citric Acid
1%Citric Acid

99%

Figure 7

19

Scoring or Rating Test

The majority of panelists scored the 5% citric acid/apple juice solution as 1, having the
most intense rating of sourness from the reference, a 2.5% citric acid/apple juice solution,
which was given an arbitrary score of 4. The 1% citric acid solution was given a score of
6 by the majority of the participants at 73%. Results varied amongst the remaining
panelist for scores 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Complete results are demonstrated in Figure 8.
Ra ngResultsbasedonArbitraryValue(4)of 2.5%CitricAcid)
80%
73%
70%

64%

60%
50%
40%
28%

30%

1%Citric Acid
5%Citric Acid

20%

15%

13%
10%

6%
1%

0%

1 (Most Sour)

1%
7 Least Sour

CitricAcidConcentra onsinOrder of Most SourtoLeast Sour fromLe toRight

Figure 8

Ranking
The results of the ranking of perceived sourness in five beverage samples depicted that
the most sour of the samples, apple juice with 10% citric acid, was easily distinguished as
the most sour of the samples with 100% of the votes. Similarly, the vast majority of the
participants were able to assess that the plain apple juice (no citric acid) was the least
sour of the five samples. Results followed this trend with the majority of the panelists

20

correctly rating the perceived sourness of beverages in descending order of sourness.

Refer to Figure 9 for complete results.

Rankingof CitricAcidSamplesBasedonPerceivedSourness
Distribu onofVotesRankingSamplesbyNumberinOrderofMostto
LeastSour

100%

83%

93%

89%

85%

10%Citric Acid
5%Citric Acid
2.5%Citric Acid
1%Citric Acid
0%Citric Acid

11%

10%
0%

3%2%
1 (Most Sour)

4%3%
4

3%

4%
1%1%
5 (Least Sour)

CitricAcidConcentra onsinOrder of Most Sour toLeast Sour fromLe toRight

Figure 9

Preferences were also ranked based upon the perceived sourness of the samples. These
are depicted in Figure 10.

21

Rankingof CitricAcidSamplesBasedonPerceivedSourness
Distribu onofVotesRankingSamplesbyNumberinOrderofMostto
LeastSour

100%

83%

93%

89%

85%

10%Citric Acid
5%Citric Acid
2.5%Citric Acid
1%Citric Acid
0%Citric Acid

11%

10%
0%

3%2%
1 (Most Sour)

4%3%

3%

4%
1%1%
5 (Least Sour)

CitricAcidConcentra onsinOrder of Most Sour toLeast Sour fromLe toRight

Figure 10

Duo-Trio
The vast majority of panelists surveyed were able to correctly determine the sample that
differed from the standard at 93% selecting Smart and Final First Street Vanilla Wafers.
The standard was Nabisco Nilla Wafers and the odd sample was Smart and Final First
Street Vanilla Wafers. Unlike the above dramatic distribution, the perceived difference
between the odd sample and the standard varied relatively evenly amongst the panelists at
29% selecting dryness as the difference, 36% selecting crunchiness as the major
difference and 36% percent believing less vanilla was the major difference. It should be
noted that four panelists did not participate in this sensory test for various reasons and
one additional vote was either not cast or not counted when results were collected, which
is reflected in the discrepancy in distribution in Figure 11.

22

Iden fica onof SamplethatthatDifferedfromtheStandardBasedon

PerceivedDifference(Duo-Trio)

7%
First Street Vanilla Wafers
Nabisco NillaWafers

93%

Figure 11

The perceived difference for the above-referenced test is depicted in figure 12.
PerceivedDifferenceBetweenStandardandSample

Dryness
Crunchiness
29%

36%

Less Vanilla

36%

Figure 12

23

Descriptive Terms
Panelists top three descriptive terms for four (4) separate food items (Goldfish, raisin,
almond and marshmallow) are listed in Figures 13, 14, 15 and 16, respectively. Note that
the results depict only the top three (3) selections by student panelists and that additional
descriptive terms could have been selected, though not in significant numbers. Also note
that the descriptive terms for the raisin for the flavor attribute was a 3-way tie at 2% for
the terms bitter, nutty and pasty.

Goldfsh
Appearance % Flavor % Texture % Aroma % Consistency % Mouthfeel %
Dry
42% Salty
77% Crisp
54% Nothing 47% Brittle
39% Crunchy
51%
Golden Brown 17% Sharp
12% Crunchy 35% Flavory 36% Cheezy
39% Crisp
35%
Puffy
15% Stale
6% Flaky
7% Burnt
10% Chewy
12% Gritty
8%

Figure 13
Raisin
Appearance % Flavor % Texture % Aroma % Consistency % Mouthfeel %
Sunken
28% Sweet
59% Gummy 32% Sweet
44% Chewy
41% Sticky
51%
Dry
18% Fruity
31% Chewy
31% Fruity
35% Gummy
34% Slimy
16%
Dark
16% Bitter
2% Rubbery 13% Nothing 13% Rubbery
18% Smooth
16%
Nutty
2%
Pasty
2%

Figure 14

Appearance % Flavor %
Dry
22% Nutty 72%
Golden Brown 19% Flat
14%
Rough
17% Stale
10%

Almond
Texture % Aroma % Consistency % Mouthfeel %
Hard
25% None
92% Chewy
49% Crunchy
52%
Crunchy 17% Burnt
2% Thick
41% Gritty
34%
Firm
14% Flowery 2% Rubbery
6% Sticky
6%

Figure 15
Appearance
Puffy
Smooth
Dull

% Flavor
86% Floury
6% Sweet
4% Pasty

% Texture
73% Velvety
15% Springy
11% Gummy

Marshmallow
%
Aroma
22% Sweet
20% Flowery
19% Nothing

% Consistency
96% Gummy
2% Rubbery
1% Chewy

% Mouthfeel %
39%
48% Smooth
33%
19% Sticky
Slimy
18%
15%

Figure 16

24

Discussion
Because panelists were untrained college students, the vast majority of whom had
no prior knowledge of sensory testing prior to participating in this study, several
limitations are errors can be noted. First, as reflected in the data, there was either one
panelist from section two who failed to cast a vote for the aroma category in all food
items related to the descriptive analysis segment of the tests, or one vote was consistently
not counted for this category. Interestingly, the results from other tests indicated that at
least one person (in one case, only one person) from section two had difficulty
distinguishing between a 0% citric acid concentration in apple juice and a 1%
concentration in apple juice whereas 99% of the panelists had no difficulty perceiving
this slight variation at all. This suggests that the panelist from section two was either sick,
which could affect his/her ability to perceive odors and therefore, tastes, or has an
inherent reduction in his or her olfactory sense. Other limitations and discrepancies in
data to note are possible distractions during testing. Some distractions that were noted
were sneezing by a panelist, talking between the instructors and assistants, questions
being asked to the instructor during testing, facial expressions by panelists when
sampling, especially during the Ranking, Rating and Duo-Trio tests, and other
distractions that were noted in the four sections. Though panelists were instructed not to
make faces and to limit other possible distractions, the arrangement of the classroom that
was used for conducting the various tests made it virtually impossible to prevent any and
all distractions. One suggestion to limit distractions for future testing would be to have
individual panelists sit in an enclosed desk area that has short walls on either side such as

25

those in many libraries, including the San Diego State Love Library. This way the
participant will not be tempted to look at his/her neighbors and/or be distracted by
movement. In addition, disposable earplugs could be used to block out any talking and
other background noise, as this too can influence perception. In fact, the study conducted
by Woods and others (2010) suggested this phenomenon. Therefore, it is imperative that
for future experiments background noise and other distractions are drastically reduced if
not eliminated entirely.
Results clearly demonstrate that beverage color does have an influence on
perceived sweetness, sourness, artificiality and overall acceptability. Significant
differences between the light yellow beverage and the emerald colored beverage illustrate
these findings. While these two extremes impart clear distinctions between these criteria,
the remaining three beverages did not have such obvious distinctions. It can be noted,
however, that the chartreuse beverage that had both green and yellow characteristics had
the least votes for the above-mentioned criteria. This result implies that consumers
become confused about flavor when colors are combined and no real distinction exists
and reduces overall appeal, as suggested by Tepper (1992). Furthermore, results
regarding temperature imply that panelists from this laboratory would prefer to consume
intense/deep colored beverages at a cold temperature with very few voting for another
temperature preference. Findings also suggest that there is a correlation between
artificiality and acceptability with 85% of panelists selecting the emerald colored
beverage (Watermelon Gatorade) as the most artificial and also the most disliked and
most rejected beverage (would not consume). It should be noted, that though research

26

suggests that humans are hard-wired to enjoy sweet tastes, these findings may suggest
that humans will resist this urge when the product is perceived to be extremely artificial.
Additional results from studies in this laboratory also suggest that consumers can
easily identify when slight variations in food tastes exist. For example, in the Paired
Comparison, Triangle and Ranking tests conducted by this laboratory, the vast majority of
the panelists were able to correctly distinguish between perceived variations in citric acid
when mixed with apple juice. Most significantly, participants were able to rank
concentrations in order from most sour to least sour with 10%, 5%, 2.5%, 1%, and 0%
citric acid respectively, with the vast majority of panelists ranking them in the proper
order. Likewise, variations in texture and sodium are also relatively easily to detect and
have an impact on overall acceptability. Though not slight, reductions in sodium were
easily distinguished and impacted flavor and likability in military entrees except when
factors other than sodium content could have contributed to flavor, such as spices and fat,
among others (Adams and others 1995). While higher citric acid concentrations (or
decreased sweetness, as it were), was related to reduced preference by participants, the
inverse relationship exists with sodium content as suggested by the data.
Other minor differences in flavor were also relative easy to detect, though
perceptions of the type of flavor varied. For example, results of the Duo-Trio sensory
evaluation the majority of the panelists (93%) in this laboratory were able to distinguish
between the standard, Nabisco Nilla Wafers, from the different sample, First Street
Vanilla Wafers by Smart and Final. However, when asked to rate what made the sample
different from the standard, selections varied relatively consistently across the three
options, with dryness scoring 29% of the votes and crunchiness and less vanilla both

27

scoring 36% of the votes. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is the amount of
preservatives, stabilizers, flavor enhancers and other ingredients, both natural and
artificial, added to the products. As demonstrated in the study conducted by Laguna
(2011), reduction in one component affects other characteristics of the product and must
then be compensated for with additional ingredients. For example, reducing the fat
content of short-dough biscuits affects the overall texture of the product, which reduces
consumer acceptability. While substitutions of ingredients may be effective in balancing
characteristics, perception and distinctions in flavorings may be negatively affected
and/or influenced. In the Duo-Trio test conducted by this laboratory, the characteristics of
dryness, crunchiness and vanilla appear to have been muddled during the manufacturing
process, as suggested by the results of this study. Food companies should pay close
attention to these and other studies when formulating new recipes for similar products
when attempting to offer lower fat, lower sodium and/or cheaper options of their well
known and popular products. This is especially important in this day and age when there
is such an emphasis on the necessity for improved diets and to reduce the rates of
diseases directly related to the consumption of food.
This is just one reason why sensory evaluation of food and beverage products is
so important to the many industries that stake an interest in them. These industries
include, but are not limited to, restaurant and hospitality, health and medical, nutrition,
food developers and manufacturers, marketing and advertising companies, farming and
agriculture industries, education, and many others. It would be advantageous therefore,
for said industries to continually conduct research into how the senses influence
perception and how products can be developed to manipulate these perceptions.

28

Sometimes, however, conducting studies to understand or manipulate taste or

texture, smell, visual appeal or even sounds related to food go beyond what is necessary,
as indicated by the King (2012) study regarding the description of certain characteristics
of fresh figs. This study attempted to develop common vocabulary when describing the
attributes of fresh figs in an effort to streamline the relationships between consumers,
growers and retailers. Therefore, it is not always necessary to conduct tests on the affects
of certain ingredients or components of foods to gain and understanding of their
relationship to the senses. Occasionally all that is required is the language necessary to
describe them. In this regard, making sense of the senses may not necessarily be as
scientific or complicated as one would imagine.

References
Adams Simone O, Maller Owen, Cardello Armand V 1995. Consumer acceptance of foods lower
in sodium J of Am Diet Assoc
Brown A. 2011. Understanding Food: Principles and Preparation. Unit 1 Sensory evaluation 5th
ed. p1
Crisosto Gayle M., Crisosto Carlos H., 2012. Describing the appearance and flavor
profiles of fresh fig (Ficus carica L.) cultivars. J Food Sci Vol 77 Nr.12
Drewnowski A. 1997. Why do we like fat? J of Am Diet Assoc 97(7):S58-S62
Goff S, Preferred flavors. 2007 Nutraceuticals World 10(7):46-48
King Ellenas, Hopfer Helene, Haug Megan T., Orsl Jennifer D., Heymann Hildegarde,

29

Laguna, Varela, Salvador, Sanz, Fiszman 2011. Balancing Texture and other sensory features in
reduced fat short-dough biscuits. J Texture Stud 43(235-245)
Schiffman SS, Graham BG., 2000. Taste and smell perception affect appetite and immunity in
the elderly. Eur J Clin Nutr 54, Suppl 3, S54-563
Tepper Beverly J., 1992 Effects of a slight color variation on consumer acceptance of orange
juice J of Sens Stud 8(145-154)
Woods A.T., Poliakoff E., Lloyd D.M., Kuenzel J., Hodson R., Gonda H., Batchelor J.,
Dijksterhaus G.B., Thomas A. 2010. Effect of background noise on food perception. J
Food Qual 2010.07.003

30