Food Quality and Preference 26 (2012) 141–150

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Sensory functionality of extra-virgin olive oil in vegetable foods assessed

by Temporal Dominance of Sensations and Descriptive Analysis
Caterina Dinnella a, Camilla Masi a, Gianpaolo Zoboli b, Erminio Monteleone a,⇑
a
Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, University of Florence, Italy
b
ADACTA International, Corso Vittorio Emanuele 122, 80121 Napoli, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Current methods used to classify extra-virgin olive oils into sensory quality categories involve evaluation
Received 24 October 2011 of oils on their own and thus do not take into account the actual conditions that consumers often expe-
Received in revised form 23 February 2012 rience them, that is, mixed with other foods. Descriptive Analysis (DA) and Temporal Dominance of Sen-
Accepted 21 April 2012
sations (TDS) methods were used to assess the impact of two Italian extra-virgin olive oils with different
Available online 30 April 2012
sensory properties (oil A from Tuscany and oil B from Garda lake region) on the perceived sensory profiles
of pureed beans and tomatoes. Both descriptive data and TDS curves showed that the addition of olive oils
Keywords:
strongly influenced the sensory properties of tomato and bean samples by modifying the intensity and
Liking
Freshness
the dominance rate of their characteristic attributes (suppression of sourness and watery character of
Consumer test tomato and suppression of metallic flavour and creaminess in bean samples) and/or by contributing
Tomato new sensations, peculiar for each oil (bitterness and grassy flavour for oil A and unripe fruit flavour for
Bean oil B). Modifications of the sensory properties of tomatoes induced by oils also affected consumers’ hedo-
nic responses in terms of liking and perceived freshness. Furthermore, no relationships have been found
between liking and freshness ratings for oil and those reported for the combination of oil with tomato or
bean purees.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction asymmetrical intensity shifts can take place as a function of sapid

The perceived sensory profile of a food depends on complex
interactions between several different factors. Omitting those re-
lated to extrinsic food properties, such as expectation, context
and individual physiological variation of perceptual abilities, and
only considering the intrinsic factors related to its chemical com-
position, the network of interactions taking place in the context
of food perception still remains extremely complex (Delwiche,
2003). When a single sensory modality, such as taste, is considered,
at least three levels of interaction can be defined for a multiple
stimuli mixture (Keast & Breslin, 2002). There are chemical interac-
tions, leading to structural, composition or physical modifications
of molecules; oral physiological interactions, related to the poten-
tial for one compound to interfere with taste receptor cells or taste
transduction mechanisms associated with another compound and
there are cognitive interactions, related to the central processing of
signals induced by different sapid compounds. Also, how these var-
ious interactions affect the perceived intensity of tastes does not
follow a general rule. In fact, enhancement, suppression and
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Dipartimento di Biotecnologie Agrarie, Via
Donizetti, 6, 51144 Firenze, Italy. Tel.: +39 055 3288470; fax: +39 055 3288488.
E-mail address: erminio.monteleone@unifi.it (E. Monteleone).
compound concentrations and of their taste quality.
Different sensory modalities can interact with each other thus
resulting in synesthetic experiences, whereby the stimulation of
one sensory modality gives rise to a perceptual experience in an-
other sensory modality (Robertson & Sagiv, 2005). In the context
of food perception, flavour represents one of the most well known
examples of multisensory integration (Awray & Spence, 2008). The
ability of odours to modify tastes depends on the sensory quality of
the stimuli and on their relevant concentration/intensity. Mixing
congruous odour and taste stimuli can induce enhancement while
mixing incongruous stimuli can result in suppression of taste
intensity (Caporale, Policastro, & Monteleone, 2004; Pfeiffer, Hort,
Hollowood, & Taylor, 2006; Stevenson, Prescott, & Boakes, 1999).
The modification of taste quality by odour seems to be a conse-
quence of learning from previous instances of co-exposure such
as might naturally occur during eating (Prescott, Johnstone, & Fran-
cis, 2004). Moreover, the intensity of flavour perception can be dri-
ven by the concentration/intensity of only one of the flavour
components (Davidson, Linforth, Hollowood, & Taylor, 1999). As
well as taste and smell, stimulation of the trigeminal and somato-
sensory systems by chemical irritation, temperature, texture and
consistency of foods are able to influence the overall perception
of flavour. For example, a decrease in both taste and flavour inten-
sity ratings has been found when solution viscosity is increased

0950-3293/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.04.013
142 C. Dinnella et al. / Food Quality and Preference 26 (2012) 141–150
without significant modification of the odorous volatile concentra-
tion released in the nose (Cook, Hollowood, Linforth, & Taylor,
2003; Hollowood, Linforth, & Taylor, 2000). Based on the multisen-
sory interactions underlying flavour perception it has recently
been proposed that the term flavour should be used to describe
the combinations of smell, taste, touch and trigeminal system that
influence human perception when tasting food (Awray & Spence,
2008).
Finally, the adoption of either analytical (emphasizing the dis-
tinctiveness of the different sensory active compounds of a mix)
or synthetic (encouraging the blurring of the perceptual bound-
aries between different sensory modality) experimental strategies
has a significant effect on the extent of sensory interactions that
are observed (Clark & Lawless, 1994; Prescott et al., 2004).
Another important aspect to consider is the dynamic nature of
perception defined as a temporal series of events (Piggott, 2001).
A two-step model has been proposed for flavour release and per-
ception (Dijksterhuis & Piggott, 2001). The first step considers phys-
ical, chemical and physiological events taking place in the mouth
during eating, including changes in food texture and temperature,
the kinetics of stimulus diffusion towards receptors and of chemical
reactions within food components and between sensory active
molecules and receptor systems. The second step involves physio-
logical and psychological processes including adaptation, sensitiza-
tion, cognition and quali-quantitative judgment. The perception of
sensory properties changes during consumption of a food product
according to the sequence of events that develop from the first bite
to swallowing.
From an applicative perspective of food production and devel-
opment, the dynamic and multisensory aspects of food perception
have important consequences for a better understanding of the
processes used by consumers to assess acceptability and sensory
properties of food products (Blake, 2004).
An awareness of the complexity of perception is crucial for the
sensory characterization of food ingredients. Assessing the sensory
functionality, defined as the ability to impact on the sensory profile
and on the acceptability of the food matrix with which it is com-
bined, should be an appropriate approach for evaluating the sen-
sory performance of an ingredient.
In this study, extra-virgin olive oil was used as an added ingredi-
ent to certain foods. Olive oil represents a staple food in many coun-
tries of the Mediterranean area (Spain, Italy, Greece) and its market
is rapidly growing in other Western countries. It is considered the
most representative food in the traditional Mediterranean diet
where it provides 85% of the fat content (Perez-Jmenez, Ruano,
Perez-Martinez, Lopez-Segura, & Lopez-Miranda, 2007). The popu-
lar acceptance of a Mediterranean diet has been related to its high
fat content. The increased palatability of fat containing foods de-
pends on the triacylglycerol fraction and its capacity to modify tex-
ture and carry many taste and aroma compounds (Mattes, 2009).
Furthermore, extra-virgin olive oil contains a variety of microcom-
ponents that contribute odour, colour, taste and tactile sensations
to food. The sensory profile of extra-virgin olive oil varies widely,
depending on oil microcomponent composition which in turn is
influenced by cultivars, pedoclimatic conditions, agricultural prac-
tices, olive ripening stage and extraction techniques (Servili et al.,
2004). Olive oil is an extremely versatile ingredient with a wide range
of uses (dressing for cold and hot dishes, recipe ingredient, cooking oil
for roasting and frying). Flavour, taste and culinary use represent
factors motivating olive oil purchase and consumption for both expe-
rienced and emergent market consumers (Caporale, Policastro,
Carlucci, & Monteleone, 2006; Delgado & Guinard, 2011; Krystallis
& Ness, 2003). Despite numerous attempts (Caporale et al., 2006;
Dekhili & d’Hauteville, 2009; Matsatsinis, Grigoroudis, & Samaras,
2007; Sandalidou & Baourakis, 2002; Stefani, Romano, & Cavicchi,
2006) no method has yet provided a comprehensive model for
evaluating the drivers of consumer’s liking of extra-virgin olive oil
in relation to their perceived qualities.
Current methods used to classify extra-virgin olive oils into sen-
sory quality categories involve evaluations of oils on their own and
thus do not take into account the actual conditions that consumers
often experience when consuming olive oil (i.e. mixed with other
food). Categories based on the intensity of flavours in compliance
with national regulations (Reg. CE N. 2568/1991, Reg. CE N. 796/
2002) or defined by experts in award events, often do not relate
to consumer hedonic responses. The relatively low expertise of
consumers from emergent markets may account for this (Delgado
& Guinard, 2011; Recchia, Monteleone, & Tuorila, 2012). However,
sensory expectations of extra-virgin olive oil’s contribution to the
sensory profile of the food matrix to which it is added should also
be taken into account. Information about conditions of use that al-
low an oil to express its best sensory potential would greatly help
in optimizing both production and market positioning strategies
for this ingredient.
An effective extra-virgin olive oil valorisation strategy based on
culinary use should consider the expected effect of this ingredient
on the whole sensory profile of a dish or in a recipe. The definition
of olive oil styles based on the combined levels of bitterness and
pungency and ‘‘harmonic’’ food pairing (intensely bitter and pun-
gent oils suited for strong flavoured foods and those low in bitter-
ness and pungency suited for delicately flavoured foods) have
been suggested (Cerretani, Biasini, Bonoli-Carbognin, & Bendini,
2007). However, the wide spectrum of extra-virgin olive oil sensory
profiles makes it possible to envisage the use of a classification that
has several different aims, for example, adding complexity to a dish,
enhancing/suppressing its flavour/taste and modifying its texture
(Monteleone & Dinnella, 2011). The systematic collection of infor-
mation relevant to the effects of adding oils with different sensory
profiles to various food categories needs sensory methodologies
capable of taking into account the complex network of phenomena
underlying food perception. The multidimensionality of the percep-
tual space over time is well represented by the TDS method (Pineau
et al., 2009). The product perception pattern is represented by
curves reporting the frequency with which sensations reported in
a list of several attributes, are considered as dominant by a trained
panel during food consumption. This descriptive method allows the
investigation of qualitative changes perceived during eating and
explicitly considers sensory interactions taking place during food
consumption (Labbe, Schlich, Pineau, Gilbert, & Martin, 2009;
Lenfant, Loret, Pineau, Hartmann, & Martin, 2009; Meillon, Viala,
Urbano, Guillot, & Schlich, 2010; Saint-Eve et al., 2011).
Descriptive Analysis (DA) and Temporal Dominance of Sensa-
tions (TDS) methods were used in the present work to assess the
impact of two Italian extra-virgin olive oils with different sensory
properties on the perceived profile of pureed beans and tomatoes.
The relationships between these two data sets were analysed. The
role of intensity and dominance rate of sensations in determining
the consumer hedonic responses was also investigated.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Samples
Two Italian extra-virgin olive oils produced in different regions
were used. The first one (oil A) was from Tuscany (cultivar Frantoio
50%, Leccino 30%, Moraiolo 20%) and the second one (oil B) from
the area of Garda lake-Veneto (cultivar Grignano 100%).
Canned whole tomatoes (San Marzano) and canned whole
beans (cannellini) were purchased at a local retailer. Immediately
prior to the evaluation sessions, both canned products were
homogenised in a mixer/blender until a puree was obtained.
 C. Dinnella et al. / Food Quality and Preference 26 (2012) 141–150 143

All products were evaluated alone (without oil) and in combina-
tion with oil, by adding 3 g of oil to 30 g of tomato or bean puree
i.e. 10% oil in the mixtures. Immediately prior to sample serving,
combinations were mixed using a tea-spoon for around 15 s, until
the oil was homogeneously dispersed as small drops in the puree.
In total eight samples were considered: oil A, oil B, tomato, tomato
with oil A, tomato with oil B, bean, bean with oil A and bean with
oil B.
2.2. Trained panel
Thirteen subjects, seven males and six females, aged from 21 to
33 years were recruited from the students and staff of the Univer-
sity of Florence. The subjects had no history of disorders in oral
perception. They were paid for their participation in the study.
All subjects were very familiar with extra-virgin olive oil. Written
informed consent was obtained from each subject after the
description of the experiment.
The subjects developed a vocabulary describing differences be-
tween samples according to the Generic Descriptive Analysis
method (Lawless & Heymann, 1998). Panellists participated in
three training sessions of about 60 min each. A main list of attri-
butes was developed (Table 1) which described the mouthfeel,
taste and flavour of oils, tomato and bean samples, evaluated both
with and without the two oils In order to train the panellists to
evaluate the descriptors, some standards were prepared as re-
ported in Table 1. All standards were prepared to induce a moder-
ate intensity, corresponding to the central point of the nine point
scale. A nine point category scale labelled at the extremes with
‘‘extremely weak’’ and ‘‘extremely strong’’ was used for evaluation.
two sample sets were evaluated in duplicate: one consisting of the
two oil samples and the other one of the three tomato samples (to-
mato without oil, tomato with oil A, tomato with oil B). Two sam-
ple sets were evaluated in duplicate in the second session: one
consisting of the oil samples and the other one of bean samples
(bean without oil, bean with oil A, bean with oil B). In the third ses-
sion a set consisting of tomato samples and one consisting of bean
samples were evaluated in duplicate. In each session the presenta-
tion order of sets was counterbalanced so that half subjects evalu-
ated set 1 as first and set 2 as second whereas the other half did the
opposite.
Oils (3 g) were presented in a test tube identified by a three di-
git code, subjects were instructed to pour the whole test tube con-
tent in a spoon for evaluation. Tomato and bean samples were
presented in plastic cups identified by a three digit code. Subjects
were instructed to thoroughly mix each sample immediately be-
fore taking a spoon for the evaluation. After 8 s, subjects were ad-
vised to swallow the sample. The total evaluation time was 90 s.
The order of the subset presentation was randomized across sub-
jects within and between subsets. The order of attributes was ran-
domized between subjects and was always the same for a given
panellist. After each sample, subjects rinsed their mouths with dis-
tilled water for 30 s, had some plain crackers for 30 s and finally
rinsed their mouths with water for a further 30 s. Subjects took a
10 min break between subset evaluations. All evaluations were
performed in individual booths under red lights.
Data were recorded using the FIZZ Software Version 2.40G
(Biosystemes, Couternon, France) and automatically plotted as
TDS curves (Dominance Rate – DR vs evaluation time).

2.3. Temporal Dominance of Sensations 2.4. Descriptive analysis

The most relevant attributes for describing the temporal evolu-
tion of sensations induced by each product were selected from the
main lists by panellists. Three different lists consisting of five or
nine attributes were used for TDS evaluation of oils or tomato
and bean samples, respectively (Table 1).
The panel participated to five sessions. Two sessions were per-
formed for training subjects with the use of the computer system
for TDS data acquisition. Three evaluation sessions were per-
formed, each sample was replicated four times. In the first session
A trained panel participated in three evaluation sessions. Each
sample was replicated three times. In each session the following
five sets were evaluated: set 1 – oil samples, set 2 – tomato with
oil A and B; set 3 – bean with oil A and B; set 4 – tomato without
oil; set 5 – bean without oil. Set and sample presentations were
randomized across subjects. Evaluations were performed in the
same conditions previously described. The order of attribute eval-
uation was balanced to minimize a possible ‘‘proximity’’ effect.
Subjects had a five minute break between set evaluations.

Table 1
Sensory attributes of oils and pureed tomato and bean samples, definitions and standards (moderate intensity on a 9-point category scale).

Attributes Definition Standard Products Combinations

Oils Pureed Pureed Pureed Pureed
tomatoes beans tomatoes beans
Flavour
Bean Odour of canned white beans – – DA/TDS – DA/TDS
Bitterness Bitter taste Quinine dichloride (0.025 g/l) DA/TDS TDS TDS DA/TDS DA/TDS
Grassy Odour of freshly mown grass Cis-3-hexenol in seed oil (140 ll/l) DA/TDS TDS TDS DA/TDS DA/TDS
Green olive Odour of fresh green olive pulp Fresh green olive pulp DA – – DA DA
crushed in seed oil (1 g/ml)
Metallic Metallic taste typical of canned food FeSO4 (1.5 g/l) – – DA/TDS – DA/TDS
Peppery Leaving a burning sensation in the DA – – DA DA
oral cavity and on the tongue
Pungency Leaving a burning sensation in the DA/TDS TDS TDS DA/TDS DA/TDS
back of the throat
Sourness Sour taste Citric acid (0.25 g/l) – DA/TDS – DA/TDS –
Sweetness Sweet taste Sucrose (5.0 g/l) – DA/TDS DA/TDS DA/TDS DA/TDS
Tomato Odour canned tomatoes – DA/TDS – DA/TDS –
Unripe fruit Odour of unripe, ‘‘green’’ fruit DA/TDS TDS TDS DA/TDS DA/TDS
Mouth feel
Creamy Soft and smooth texture – – DA/TDS – DA/TDS
Watery Thin, weak texture, opposite of viscous – DA/TDS – DA/TDS
144 C. Dinnella et al. / Food Quality and Preference 26 (2012) 141–150

The perceived intensity of each sensation was rated on a nine selection. The critical value of DR for a significance level of 95%
point category scale labelled at the extremes with ‘‘extremely in TDS curves was computed with the binomial distribution.
weak’’ and ‘‘extremely strong’’.

2.6.2. Descriptive data

2.5. Consumer test
2.5.1. Subjects
Sixty-four subjects (24 males and 40 females, aged from 23 to
60) recruited in the Florence area took part in this experiment.
All subjects were familiar with extra-virgin olive oils including
PDO (Protected Denomination of Origin) products. They were also
regular consumers of extra-virgin olive oil, with a self reported fre-
quency of consumption greater than once a day.
2.5.2. Evaluations
Samples were presented monadically. The order of the sample
presentation was randomized across subjects. Subjects were asked
to hold the sample in their mouth for 8 s, swallow it and rate the
overall liking and freshness. Liking was rated on a 9-point hedonic
scale (Peryam and Pilgrim, 1957). This fully anchored 9-point cat-
egory scale ranges from 1 (‘‘dislike extremely’’– estremamente sgra-
devole) to 9 (‘‘like extremely’’– estremamente gradevole), with a
neutral point at 5 (‘‘neither like nor dislike’’– ne gradevole/nè sgra-
devole). A 9-point category scale ranging from 1 (‘‘not at all’’) to 9
(‘‘extremely’’) with a neutral point at 5 (‘‘moderately’’) was used
for freshness ratings. After each sample, subjects rinsed their
mouths with distilled water for 30 s, had some plain crackers for
30 s and finally rinsed their mouths with water for a further 30 s.
Evaluations were performed in the same conditions previously de-
scribed in individual booths under white lights.
2.6. Data analysis
2.6.1. TDS data
Panel performance was assessed on the frequency values with
which each attribute was selected as dominant by each subject,
computed from raw software coding (1 selected; 0 not selected)
(Pineau, Neville, & Lepage, 2011); for this purpose, the first 30 s
of evaluation were considered. The obtained frequency values were
analysed by multi-block PCA (Tucker-1) and by p⁄MSE plot (Panel
Check software, ver. 1.4.0, Nofima, Norway) to assess panel calibra-
tion and assessor performance, respectively (Naes, Brockhoff, & To-
mic, 2010). ANOVA mixed models (assessors as random effect)
were used to evaluate sample effect on the frequency of attribute
A Three-way ANOVA model (assessors, sample and replicates as
fixed factors), with Fisher LDS post hoc test considered significant
for p 6 0.05, was used to validate descriptive data.
2.6.3. Consumer data
A Two-way mixed ANOVA model with subjects taken as a ran-
dom effect was used to evaluate the effect of the combination with
olive oil on the sensory profile of tomato and bean samples.
Liking and freshness ratings expressed for oil A and B, toma-
to + oil A and tomato + oil B, bean + oil A and bean + oil B were
compared by paired t-tests. A two-way ANOVA model was used
to estimate the effect of the combination with olive oil on liking
and freshness ratings expressed for tomato and bean samples.
3. Results
3.1. Temporal Dominance of Sensations
Visual inspection of TDS curves showed that, for all products,
several sensations were perceived as dominant during the first
30 s of evaluation, whereas after that only one clearly dominated
each perceived profile. The maximum value of Dominance
Rate (DRmax) of sensations perceived over the significance level
are reported: pungency for oils, DRmax P 62; tomato flavour,
DRmax P 58 for tomato samples; bean flavour DRmax P 55 for bean
samples.
The Tuker-1 test performed on these frequency values, com-
puted only for tomato and bean samples, showed that their corre-
lation loadings are strongly related on the first consensus
dimension for eight out of nine of the considered attributes, thus
indicating the panel calibration. A p⁄MSE plot of frequency values
showed that, with the exception of one subject who was taken out
from further data analysis on oil samples, assessors were able to
discriminate between products using most of the attributes and
to reproduce their own results amongst replicates.
The frequency with which attributes were selected as dominant
during the first 30 s of evaluation of oil, tomato and bean samples
were independently submitted to a three-way ANOVA mixed mod-
el (Table 2). No significant effect of replicates was found.

Table 2
Three-way-ANOVA mixed model: sample effect (F values) and mean frequency values with which attributes were selected as dominant during the first 30 evaluation sec of
dynamic profile.

Bitterness Pungency Astringency Grassy Unripe fruit Sweetness Sourness Watery Tomato Flavour Metallic Creamy Bean flavour
Oil
Oil A 0.29a 0.40 0.02 0.22a 0.07b – – – – – – –
Oil B 0.18b 0.40 0.04 0.10b 0.28a – – – – – – –
F1;33 4.92 – – 4.09 22.03 – – – – – – –
Tomato
w/o Oil 0.01b 0.00b 0.02 0.00b 0.04b 0.11 0.32 0.17a 0.33 – – –
+oil A 0.19a 0.07a 0.01 0.08a 0.06b 0.03 0.23 0.1b 0.23 – – –
+oil B 0.13a 0.03b 0.02 0.06a 0.12a 0.06 0.23 0.1b 0.23 – – –
F2;72 6.03 7.41 – 12.07 8.05 – – 4.85 – – – –
Bean
w/o Oil 0.00b 0.00b 0.01 0.00b 0.00b 0.08 – – – 0.16a 0.15a 0.21a
+oil A 0.11a 0.05a 0.01 0.08a 0.04b 0.07 – – – 0.01b 0.09b 0.13b
+oil B 0.05b 0.02b 0.01 0.04b 0.20a 0.06 – – – 0.01b 0.11ab 0.10b
F2;72 6.52 8.08 / 8.66 41.35 / – – – 18.41 3.79 9.12

Values followed by different letters are significantly different (p 6 0.05) F value are only reported for significantly different attributes (p 6 0.05).
 C. Dinnella et al. / Food Quality and Preference 26 (2012) 141–150
Bitterness and grassy flavour frequency values were signifi-
cantly higher in oil A than in oil B, while unripe fruit was selected
as a dominant flavour more frequently in oil B than in oil A.
The combination of tomatoes with either oil caused a significant
increase in the frequency with which bitter taste and grassy
flavour were selected as dominant sensations, while inducing a de-
crease in watery frequency values. Furthermore, in tomato sam-
ples, oil A induced a significant increase in pungency frequency
values and oil B a significant increase in unripe fruit flavour.
The combination of beans with either oil induced a significant
decrease in frequency values for creamy, metallic and bean flavour.
Moreover, frequency values in bean puree + oil A induced a signif-
icant increase in bitterness, pungency and grassy flavour and with
oil B an increase in unripe fruit flavour.
The panel’s performance was considered reliable in view of the
general results from the frequency value analysis.
Examples of dynamic sensory profiles, represented by TDS
curves, are shown in Figs. 1–3. Based on the binomial distribution,
the critical values of DR for a significance level of 95% resulted in
17% when thirteen subjects performed the evaluation using nine
attributes, such as in the case of tomato and bean samples; and
29% when twelve subjects and five attributes were considered,
such as in the case of oil samples.
Different dominant sensations characterize the initial part of oil
TDS curves. Bitter taste and grassy flavour were perceived as dom-
inant in oil A while unripe fruit flavour was the dominant sensation
when oil B was evaluated. Also the grassy flavour DR reached sig-
nificance during the first part of oil B evaluation. Pungency became
the only dominant sensation for both oil samples from swallowing
until the end of evaluation. The astringency DR value reached sig-
nificance in the last part of oil A evaluation.
Fig. 1. TDS curves of olive oil samples. p0 represents the chance level, ps represents
the significance level (95%).
145
Sour taste, watery character and tomato flavour were the dom-
inant sensations during the first part of the evaluation of tomato
without oil. Tomato flavour remained the only dominant sensation
after swallowing and lasted until the evaluation ended. The reduc-
tion in the sour taste DRmax value, the suppression of watery
character dominance and the onset of bitter taste dominance were
the main effects of combining tomato with oil A. Similar effects
were induced by adding oil B to tomato. Moreover oil B contributes
a typical unripe fruit flavour amongst the sensations dominating
the first part of tomato/oil B evaluation.
The dominant sensations characterizing the initial part of the
bean without oil curves were creamy texture and metallic flavour.
Bean flavour was perceived as dominant during the whole evalua-
tion time. Combining bean with either oil A or oil B induced a
decrease in the creamy DRmax value, suppression of the metallic
flavour dominance and a delay in the onset of the bean flavour
dominance. Also, bitter taste and grassy flavour were perceived
as dominant sensations at the beginning of the bean + oil A evalu-
ation, while unripe fruit flavour was one of sensations dominating
the beginning of the bean + oil B evaluation.
3.2. Sensory profile of oil samples
A Fixed ANOVA model on the intensity data from oils A and B
indicated a significant sample effect on the following attributes:
peppery(F1;77 = 4.33; p = 0.04), pungency (F1;77 = 4.30; p = 0.04),
bitter taste (F1;77 = 7.01; p = 0.01), artichoke (F1;77 = 4.40; p =
0.05), grassy (F1;77 = 5.48; p = 0.03) and unripe fruit (F1;77 = 7.35;
p = 0.01) (Table 3). No significant effects of replicates or asses-
sor  product interactions were found. LDS post hoc test showed
that mean intensity values of attributes were greater in oil A than
in oil B except for unripe fruit flavour which was more intense in
oil B than in oil A. Sensations perceived at a level greater than
‘‘moderate’’ (mean intensity rating > 5) were pungency, bitter
taste, artichoke and grassy flavours in oil A and pungency and arti-
choke flavour in oil B.
3.3. Effect of olive oils on the sensory profiles of pureed tomato samples
Results from a Fixed ANOVA model on the intensity data of the
sensory attributes of tomato with olive oil (Table 3) showed that
the perceived intensities of pungency (F1;24 = 4.99; p = 0.03) and
bitterness (F1;24 = 29.30; p 6 0.001) were greater in tomato + oil A
than in tomato + oil B samples and that unripe fruit flavour was
greater in tomato + oil B than in tomato + oil A samples (F1;24 =
3.95; p = 0.05). No significant effects of replicates or asses-
sor  product interactions were found Table 4.
The perceived intensities of attributes describing the sensory
profile of all tomato samples were independently submitted to a
mixed ANOVA model in order to estimate the sample effect (three
levels: tomato without oil, tomato + oil A, tomato + oil B) (Table 3).
A significant effect of sample on intensity of tomato flavour
(F2;116 = 2.52; p = 0.10), watery (F2;116 = 7.64; p = 0.003) and sweet
taste (F2;116 = 3.71; p = 0.04) was found. The combination with ol-
ive oil did not significantly affect the perceived intensity of sour
taste. An LSD post hoc test showed that the watery character and
sweet taste were perceived as less intense in tomato samples com-
bined with either oil A or oil B, with respect to tomato without oil.
The combination of tomato with oil A also induced a significant de-
crease in tomato flavour intensity.
3.4. Effect of olive oils on the sensory profile of bean samples
Results from a Fixed ANOVA model on the intensity data of sen-
sory attributes of bean samples with olive oil (Table 3) showed that
bitter taste (F1;24 = 14.35; p 6 0.001), peppery (F1;24 = 10.70; p =
146 C. Dinnella et al. / Food Quality and Preference 26 (2012) 141–150

Fig. 2. TDS curves of tomato samples. p0 represents the chance level, ps represents the significance level (95%).

Fig. 3. TDS curves of bean samples. p0 represents the chance level, ps represents the significance level (95%).
 C. Dinnella et al. / Food Quality and Preference 26 (2012) 141–150
Table 3
Three-way-ANOVA fixed model: Sensory profile of extra virgin olive oil A and B: mean intensity scores and F values.
Oil Bitterness Peppery Pungency
a a a a
Oil A 5.37 6.97 4.43
Oil B 4.27b 6.07b 3.48b
F1;24 7.24 4.33 4.30
Different letters indicate significantly different values (p 6 0.050). F value are only reported for significantly different attributes (p 6 0.05).
0.003), artichoke (F1;247 = 11.34; p = 0.003) and grassy (F1;24 =
26.13; p 6 0.001) flavours were perceived as more intense in bea-
n + oil A than in bean + oil B samples, whereas the intensity of un-
ripe fruit flavour was greater in bean + oil B than in bean + oil A
(F1;24 = 27.85; p 6 0.001). No significant effects of replicates or
assessor  product interactions were found.
The perceived intensities of attributes describing the sensory
profile of all bean samples were independently submitted to a
mixed ANOVA model in order to estimate the sample effects (three
levels: bean without oil, bean + oil A, bean + oil B) (Table 3). Signif-
icant effects of sample on intensity of bean (F2;116 = 4.26; p = 0.03)
and metallic (F2;116 = 12.12; p < 0.001) flavour and on sweet taste
(F2;116 = 5.03; p = 0.01) were found. The combination with olive oil
did not significantly affect perceived intensity of the creamy attri-
bute. A LSD post hoc test showed that bean and metallic flavours
and sweet taste were perceived as less intense in bean samples com-
bined with either oil A or oil B, compared to beans without oil.
3.5. Effect of olive oils on liking and freshness ratings of pureed tomato
and bean samples
Consumers’ liking and freshness ratings for olive oils A and B
were compared (Fig. 4). A paired t-test indicated that oil A is more
liked (t63;1.99 = 3.53; p 6 0.001) and perceived as fresher
(t63;1.99 = 3.90; p 6 0.001) than oil B.
A two-way ANOVA model was used to estimate the sample ef-
fect (three levels: without oil, +oil A, +oil B) on liking and freshness
ratings of tomato and bean samples (Fig. 5). A significant effect was
found for tomato liking (F2;126 = 6.45; p = 0.002). An LSD post hoc
test indicated a significant increase in liking for tomato combined
with either oil A or oil B compared to tomato without oil. The AN-
OVA indicated that tomato combined with oil B was perceived as
fresher than both tomato without oil and tomato + oil A (F2;126 =
5.17; p = 0.007). No significant sample effects were found for the
bean samples.
The effect of liking and freshness expressed for oils alone, on lik-
ing and freshness expressed for tomato combinations, was further
investigated. The arithmetic difference between liking for oil A and
for oil B was computed for each subject, two groups of subjects
were selected, one consisting of subjects preferring oil A (cluster
Alik:liking oil A – liking oil B P 1; n = 36) and the other consisting
of subjects preferring oil B (cluster Blik liking oil A – liking oil
B 6 1; n = 19). Similarly, two clusters of consumers were selected
on the basis of their freshness ratings. One cluster considered oil A
fresher than oil B (cluster Afrs: freshness oil A – freshness oil B P 1;
n = 42) and the other cluster considered oil B fresher than oil A
(cluster Bfrs:freshness oil A – freshness oil B 6 1; n = 14).
The B clusters were not submitted to further analysis given the
small number of subjects.
Liking and freshness ratings expressed by the A clusters for to-
mato + oil samples were independently compared by paired t-test.
No significant difference was found between liking expressed for
tomato + oil A and tomato + oil B samples, whereas freshness rat-
ings of tomato + oil B were significantly greater than those ex-
pressed for tomato + oil A (t41;2.02 = 2.61; p = 0.013). The results
indicate that consumers’ liking and freshness ratings for oils do
147
Astringency Grassy Unripe fruit Artichoke Green Olive
b a
3.69 6.17 3.09 6.45 4.72
3.92 4.73b 4.13a 5.19b 4.85
– 5.48 7.35 4.40 –
not influence their liking for and perceived freshness of tomato
in combination with olive oil.
4. Discussion
4.1. Descriptive Analysis vs TDS curves
Available tools, such as TDS difference curves, are not always
suitable for panel validation in dynamic sensory profile evalua-
tions. Computing the frequency values proved to be a useful ap-
proach for assessing panel calibration and assessor performance
especially when several sensations are perceived as dominant dur-
ing the same time interval (Pineau et al., 2011). In this study, the
results from data analysis of frequency values computed on the
first 30 s of evaluation, showed significant differences amongst
the selection of dominant attributes in the oil, tomato and bean
samples.
Previous studies have demonstrated a good agreement be-
tween DA data and TDS curves in model food products (Labbe
et al., 2009; Saint-Eve et al., 2011) and this was confirmed in olive
oil samples where attributes with mean intensity ratings greater
than 5, moderate, (pungency, bitter taste and grassy flavour) were
also the dominant sensations in the oils. The only exception was
unripe fruit flavour, which was the most dominant flavour in oil
B; in fact the mean intensity rating of this attribute in oil B
was less than 5 (4.13 ± 0.41) and was not significantly different
from those expressed for grassy flavour (4.73 ± 0.40) and bitter
taste (4.27 ± 0.37). Unripe fruit is an uncommon flavour of Tuscan
extra-virgin olive oils (Laboratorio Chimico Meceologico Camera
di Commercio di Firenze, 2011) consequently, it may have caught
more of the subjects’ attention than the very well known grassy
and bitter notes. Moreover, TDS curves clearly showed the differ-
ent dynamics of the perception of stimuli, with taste and flavour
perceived as dominant when the sample is in the mouth and the
irritant sensations dominating after swallowing (Sinesio, Moneta,
& Esti, 2005).
The consistent relationship between TDS curves and DA data
was confirmed in this study for tomato and bean samples, where
most of the sensations dominating the dynamic sample profile
were also the attributes rated with an intensity P 5. However,
the watery attribute and the metallic taste in tomato and bean
samples, respectively, do not show such a relationship. The watery
attribute did not reach a significant DR value in tomato samples
combined with either oil even though it was perceived at a
strong-moderate intensity (6.22 ± 0.23 in tomato + oil A;
6.49 ± 0.23 in tomato + oil B) whereas the metallic flavour was
one of the perceived sensations dominating the bean without oil
sample, despite being rated lower than moderate intensity
(3.94 ± 0.36) and less intense than sweet taste (4.92 ± 0.28). Some
specific flavours and tastes contributed by olive oils to the descrip-
tive profile of tomato and bean combinations with oil were per-
ceived as dominant sensations despite their weak–weak/
moderate perceived intensity; this was also the case with bitter
taste (tomato + oil A: 3.40 ± 0.38; bean + oil A: 2.9 ± 0.32), grassy
(tomato + oil A: 3.64 ± 0.35; bean + oil A: 4.10 ± 0.4) and unripe
fruit (tomato + oil B: 4.35 ± 0.3; bean + oil B: 4.30 ± 0.36) flavours.
148 C. Dinnella et al. / Food Quality and Preference 26 (2012) 141–150

Green Olive

3.33
2.68

3.56
3.56
–

–
/
Artichoke

2.31b
3.25a
2.67
2.63

11.34
–

–
Unripe fruit

3.48b

2.75b
4.35a

4.31a
3.95

27.85
–

Fig. 4. Liking and freshness ratings for oil A and oil B ⁄ p 6 0.001.
Grassy

2.80b
4.11a
3.64
3.42

26.13
–

–
Astringency

2.78
2.71

2.92
2.32
–

–
Pungency

2.29b

2.05b
2.94a

2.60a
4.99

Different letters indicate significantly different values (p 6 0.050). F value are only reported for significantly different attributes (p 6 0.05).
–

–
Peppery

2.45b
2.90a
2.74
2.50

10.70
–

–
Effect of combination with olive oil A and B on tomato and bean sample sensory profile: mean intensity scores and F values.

2.15b

2.31b
3.51a

2.91a
Bitter

14.35
29.30

Fig. 5. Liking and freshness ratings for tomato samples Values followed by different
–

letters are significantly different (p P 0.05).

w/o oil
+oil A
+oil B

w/o oil
+oil A
+oil B
F1;24

F1;24

These comparison between DA data and TDS curves suggest

that unexpected (unripe fruit flavour in oil B and its combinations,
6.59b
6.56b
7.22a
Bean

4.26

grassy flavour and bitter taste in tomato and bean samples com-
–
–
–
–

bined with oil A) and less familiar (metallic flavour vs sweet taste
in bean) sensations tend to catch the subjects’ attention even when
Creamy

perceived at low intensity levels and they consequently become

7.62
7.35
7.32

sensations dominating the perceived dynamic profile of the foods.

–
–

–
––

The different dynamics of sensations induced by complex stimuli

can account for differences between information from static and
Metallic

2.67b
2.59b
3.94a

dynamic profiling (Labbe et al., 2009). The presence of olive oil in-
12.12
–
–
–
–

duced an increase in the number and the type of sensations per-

ceived while the sample is still in mouth (bitter taste, grassy and
unripe flavours). The spreading of subjects’ attention amongst a
Tomato

6.03b
6.71a

6.62a

large number of transient sensations in the early evaluation stage,

2.52

and the consequent decrease in DR values of the relevant attri-

–
–
–
–

butes, may account for the suppression of the watery and metallic
Watery

sensations in bean + oil and tomato + oil samples, respectively. The

6.21b
6.48b
7.14a

7.64

perceived profiles after swallowing were less complex and the sub-
–
–
–
–

jects perhaps focussed their attention on a small number of long

lasting sensations, such as tomato and bean flavours, and the dom-
Sour

5.96

5.89
6.05

inance of these flavours was only slightly affected by the signifi-

/

–
–
–
–

cant reductions in their intensities induced by the presence of oil.

The use of the TDS method for the sensory characterization of
Sweet

3.16b
3.55b

3.51b
3.75b
4.24a

4.57a
3.71

5.03

oil, tomato and bean samples provides information which comple-

ments those from DA studies. DR values clearly indicate that the
importance of a sensation during food consumption is not neces-
w/o Oil

w/o Oil
Tomato

+Oil A

+Oil A

sarily the same as that indicated by intensity ratings from static

+Oil B

+Oil B
F2;116

F2;116
Bean
Table 4

sensory profiles. Unripe fruit flavour perceived in oil B is a good

example of this since, despite its low intensity ratings, it was
 C. Dinnella et al. / Food Quality and Preference 26 (2012) 141–150
perceived as a sensation that clearly dominated the perception of
oil B and marked its presence when combined with food.
4.2. Contribution of olive oils’ sensory properties to the perceived
profiles of combinations
Both descriptive data and TDS curves showed that the addition
of olive oils strongly influenced the sensory properties of tomato
and bean purees either by modifying the intensity and the domi-
nance rate of their characteristic attributes, or by contributing
new sensations, peculiar for each oil. The main effects of oils, irre-
spective of their sensory profiles, were the lowering of the inten-
sity, and the suppression as a dominant sensation, of the watery
attribute in tomato + oil mixtures, and the metallic flavour in bea-
n + oil combination. These modifications in the profiles of mixtures
were not related to specific sensory properties of oils, and therefore
may be attributable to a general consequence of adding a lipid
phase to the aqueous vegetable matrix. Mixing lipid and aqueous
phases has previously been shown to modify physical characteris-
tics of food products, leading to changes in their texture and can
influence the rate and the extent of stimuli transport towards spe-
cific receptors thus influencing the perception of the relevant sen-
sations (Mattes, 2007; Miettinen, Hyvonen, & Tourila, 2003).
As expected, taste, flavours, irritant and tactile sensations per-
ceived in each olive oil were also perceived in tomato + oil and bea-
n + oil samples but at low intensity levels (from very weak to
weak/moderate). The 10-fold dilution factor of oils in the food
matrices may account for this. As expected, the decrease in the
intensity of attributes in combinations was not proportional to
their perceived intensity in oils alone. This may be due to different
psychophysical curves relating the concentration of a stimulus to
the intensity of the relevant sensation. Diffusion limits hindering
the stimuli–receptor interactions, as well as chemical–physical
interactions between sensory active molecules in olive oils and
food matrix compounds, can also be envisaged (Pripp, Busch, &
Wreeker, 2003). Furthermore, the change of lipid level can alter
the portioning of aroma compounds between aqueous and non-
aqueous phases, thus modifying the aroma profile in the head-
space of a mixture compared to that of the same food without
oil. Moreover, perceptual interactions between different sensory
modalities should also be taken into account to explain the effect
of olive oils on the perceived profile of combinations. The signifi-
cant differences between attribute intensities rated in combina-
tions correspond to the significant intensity differences perceived
in olive oils. In fact, bitterness and pungency intensities are higher
in tomato + oil A than in tomato + oil B and grassy and artichoke
flavours and peppery sensations were significantly more intense
in bean + oil A than in bean + oil B. In the same way unripe fruit fla-
vour was always more intense in food matrices combined with oil
B than in those combined with oil A. All these properties contrib-
uted by olive oils to tomato and bean samples play an important
sensory role since they represent sensations dominating the dy-
namic evaluation of the relevant samples.
The data clearly indicate that the perceived intensity of a sensa-
tion in olive oil evaluated alone does not necessarily relate to that
perceived in a combination with a food, thus highlighting the
importance of chemical–sensory interactions in the perception of
complex stimuli.
This is the case with grassy flavour, which was perceived at
moderate-strong intensity in oil A alone, but dominated the dy-
namic profile only in combination with bean, and of unripe fruit
flavour, rated weak-moderate in oil B alone, but perceived as a
dominant sensation in combination with both tomato and bean
purees. Moreover sensations considered critical for olive oil accept-
ability, such as pungency, can be completely suppressed when oil
is combined with a given food.
149
4.3. Effect of olive oil on liking and perceived freshness of pureed
tomatoes and beans
The sensory profile of oil A is typical of Tuscan extra-virgin olive
oils. In fact, green notes of grassy and artichoke flavours, pungency
and bitterness represent the main sensory properties of extra-vir-
gin olive oils produced in this region (Laboratorio Chimico Mece-
ologico Camera di Commercio di Firenze, 2011). The consumers
participating in the study were probably more familiar with Tuscan
extra-virgin olive oils than with products from other Italian regions
and this might account for the higher liking ratings expressed for
oil A with respect to oil B. High intensities of flavours, tastes and
irritant sensations characterize recently produced extra-virgin ol-
ive oils (Esti, Contini, Moneta, & Sinesio, 2009). The strong intensity
of grassy and artichoke flavours, bitter taste and pungency per-
ceived in oil A and the moderate-weak intensity of the same sensa-
tions rated in oil B should be taken into account when assessing
the perceived differences in freshness between these oils.
Several factors relating to the general effects of adding oil rather
than specific modifications of the sensory profile could account for
the increased liking of tomato + oil samples compared to that of to-
mato without oil. In fact, no significant differences in liking were
found when comparing tomato + oil A with tomato + oil B, despite
the significant differences in flavours and taste. Modifications of
the sensory properties of tomato combinations induced by both
oils, that is the reduction in both the watery attribute and the sour
taste, as well as the well known positive effect of fat addition on
food palatability, might account for the increased liking of these
samples. Dressing tomato products with extra virgin olive oil is ex-
tremely common in Italian culinary tradition and the familiarity of
subjects with this combination should also be considered. Con-
sumers clustered on the base of their preference for oils, expressed
liking ratings not significantly different for tomato + oil A and to-
mato + oil B, thus confirming the secondary role of the sensory
properties specifically contributed by each oil. Tomato + oil B was
considered as the freshest sample by all consumers and also by
the subject subgroup that considered oil A to be fresher than oil
B. The unripe fruit flavour, together with the other sensory proper-
ties specifically contributed by oil B to the tomato profile, could
possibly account for the increased perceived freshness in toma-
to + oil B compared with tomato + oil A and tomato without oil.
The oil-induced modifications of the sensory profiles of pureed
beans did not affect either liking or freshness ratings in the condi-
tions adopted in this study. Beans are a well liked product, even
when evaluated alone (6.2 ± 0.23), hence the lack of a positive ef-
fect of oil on the liking for combinations of beans and oil. Moreover,
freshness may not have been considered an appropriate descriptor
of pureed beans, hence the lack of a significant difference between
the ratings of bean puree alone and with oils.
The positive effect of extra-virgin olive oils on palatability and
the acceptance of several foods is generally accepted, however,
the consumer data indicated that this effect strongly depends on
the food with which oil is combined and cannot be related to the
individual preference expressed for an oil. In fact, oils induced an
increasing of mean liking scores in combination with tomato but
not with bean. Furthermore, the liking ratings of tomato + oil A
were not significantly different from those for tomato + oil B de-
spite the greater preference expressed by consumers for oil A.
5. Conclusions
The TDS method has been shown to be a useful complementary
tool to DA for describing the sensory properties of food products.
The complex interactions occurring between food components
represent one of the most important drivers of the perceived
150 C. Dinnella et al. / Food Quality and Preference 26 (2012) 141–150
sensory profiles and can be more clearly described by TDS than by
DA. Moreover, studying the temporal evolution of sensations and
their dominance seems to be more appropriate than the descrip-
tive profile intensity data for interpreting consumer responses. In
fact, sensations perceived at less than moderate intensity can in-
stead dominate the dynamic profile thus likely playing a key role
in freshness perception in tomato with oil.
Thus, TDS appears a suitable method to study the sensory func-
tionality of ingredients in terms of their capacity to modify the sen-
sory properties and acceptability of food pairings.
Both the panel and consumer data highlight the risk of using
sensory data from extra-virgin olive oil evaluated alone to build
up quality categories based on flavour, taste and mouth-feel sensa-
tion intensities. Key sensations marking the sensory identity of a gi-
ven oil may not be experienced in conditions of normal use and
weak relationships have been found between oils and oil/food pair-
ing for both sensory properties and hedonic consumer responses.
Acknowledgements
Authors are grateful to Mrs. Monica Borgogno for her technical
assistance.
Villa Campestri srl, Vicchio (Florence) and Azienda Agricola San
Cassiano, Mezzane di Sotto (Verona) kindly provided extravirgin
olive oils.
References
Awray, M., & Spence, C. (2008). The multisensory perception of flavour.
Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 1016–1031.
Blake, A. A. (2004). Flavour perception and the learning of food preference. In A. J.
Taylor & D. D. Roberts (Eds.), Flavour perception (pp. 172–202). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Caporale, G., Policastro, S., & Monteleone, E. (2004). Bitterness enhancement
induced by cut grass odorant (cis-3-hexen-1-ol) in a model olive oil. Food
Quality and Preference, 15, 219–227.
Caporale, G., Policastro, S., Carlucci, A., & Monteleone, E. (2006). Consumers
expectations for sensory properties in virgin olive oils. Food Quality and
Preference, 17, 116–125.
Cerretani, L., Biasini, G., Bonoli-Carbognin, M., & Bendini, A. (2007). Harmony of
virgin olive oil and food pairing: A methodological proposal. Journal of Sensory
Studies, 22, 403–416.
Clark, C. C., & Lawless, T. J. (1994). Limiting response alternatives in time-intensity
scaling: An examination of halo-dumping effect. Chemical Senses, 19, 538–594.
Cook, D. J., Hollowood, T. A., Linforth, R. S. T., & Taylor, A. J. (2003). Oral shear stress
predicts flavour perception in viscous solutions. Chemical Senses, 28, 11–23.
Davidson, J. M., Linforth, R. S. T., Hollowood, T. A., & Taylor, A. J. (1999). Effect of
sucrose on the perceived flavour intensity of chewing gum. Journal of Agriculture
and Food Chemistry, 47, 4336–4340.
Delgado, C., & Guinard, J. (2011). How consumer hedonic ratings for extra-virgin
olive oil relate to quality ratings by experts and descriptive analysis ratings?
Food Quality and Preference, 22, 213–225.
Dekhili, S., & d’Hauteville, F. (2009). Effect of the region of origin on the perceived
quality of olive oil: An experimental approach using a control group. Food
Quality and Preference, 20(7), 525–532.
Delwiche, J. (2003). The impact of perceptual interactions on perceived flavour. Food
Quality and Preference, 15, 137–146.
Dijksterhuis, G. B., & Piggott, J. R. (2001). Dynamic methods of sensory analysis.
Trends in Food Science & Technology, 11(8), 284–290.
Esti, M., Contini, M., Moneta, E., & Sinesio, F. (2009). Phenolic compounds and
temporal perception of bitterness and pungency in extra virgin olive oils:
Changes occurring throughout storage. Food Chemistry, 113, 1010–1095.
Hollowood, T. A., Linforth, R. S. T., & Taylor, A. J. (2000). The relationship between
volatile release and perception.. In D. D. Roberts & A. J. Taylor (Eds.), Flavour
release: Linking experiments, theory and reality (pp. 370–380). Washington
American Chemical Society.
Keast, R. S. J., & Breslin, P. A. S. (2002). An overview of binary taste–taste
interactions. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 111–124.
Krystallis, A., & Ness, M. (2003). Motivational and cognitive structures of Greek
consumers in the purchase of quality food products. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 16(2), 7–36.
Labbe, D., Schlich, P., Pineau, N., Gilbert, F., & Martin, N. (2009). Temporal
Dominance of Sensations and sensory profiling: A comparative study. Food
Quality and Preference, 20, 216–221.
Laboratorio Chimico Meceologico Camera di Commercio di Firenze. (2011). Oli
extravergini di oliva di Firenze-selezione. Florence-Italy: Litografia IP.
Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (1998). In Chapman & Hall (Eds.), Sensory evaluation of
foods: Principles and practices. New York, USA: Springer.
Lenfant, F., Loret, C., Pineau, N., Hartmann, C., & Martin, N. (2009). Perception of oral
food breakdown. The concept of sensory trajectory. Appetite, 52, 659–667.
Matsatsinis, N. F., Grigoroudis, E., & Samaras, A. P. (2007). Comparing distributors
judgements to buyers preferences: A consumer value analysis in the Greek olive
oil market. International Journal of Retail & Distributors management, 35(5),
324–362.
Mattes, R. D. (2007). Effects of linoleic acid on sweet, sour, salty and bitter taste
thresholds and intensity ratings of adults. America Journal of Physiology:
Gastrointestinal Liver Physiology, 292, G1242–G1248.
Mattes, R. D. (2009). Is there a fatty acid taste? Annual Review of Nutrition, 29,
305–327.
Meillon, S., Viala, D., Urbano, C., Guillot, G., & Schlich, P. (2010). Impact of partial
alcohol reduction in Syrah wine on perceived complexity and temporality of
sensations and link with preference. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 732–740.
Miettinen, S. M., Hyvonen, L., & Tourila, H. (2003). Timing of intensity perception of
a polar versus non polar aroma compound in the presence of added vegetable
fat in milk. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 51(18), 5437–5443.
Monteleone, E., & Dinnella, C. (2011). In Olivi di Toscana (Ed.), Olio gusto e salute.
Florence, Italy: Accademia dei Georgofili.
Naes, T., Brockhoff, B., & Tomic, O. (2010). Quality control of sensory profile data in
Statistics for sensory and consumer science. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Ed.
Peryam, D. R., & Pilgrim, P. J. (1957). Hedonic scale method for measuring food
preferences. Food Technology, 11, 9–14.
Perez-Jmenez, F., Ruano, J., Perez-Martinez, P., Lopez-Segura, F., & Lopez-Miranda, J.
(2007). The influence of olive oil on human health: Not a question of fat alone.
Molecular and Nutritional Food Research, 51, 1199–1208.
Pineau, N., Neville, T., & Lepage, M. (2011). Panel performance tool for Temporal
Dominance of Sensations studies. Toronto, Canada: 9th Pangborn Sensory Science
Symposium.
Pineau, N., Schlich, P., Issanchou, S., Imbert, A., Cordelle, S., Mathonnière, C., et al.
(2009). Temporal Dominance of Sensations: Construction of the TDS curves and
comparison with time-intensity. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 450–455.
Piggott, R. J. (2000). Dynamism in flavour science and sensory methodology. Food
Research International, 33, 191–197.
Pfeiffer, J. C., Hort, J., Hollowood, T. A., & Taylor, A. J. (2006). Taste–aroma
interactions in a ternary systems: A model of fruitness perception in sucrose/
acid solutions. Perception and Psychophysics, 68, 216–227.
Prescott, J., Johnstone, V., & Francis, J. (2004). Odor–taste interactions: Effect of
attentional strategies during exposure. Chemical Senses, 29, 331–340.
Pripp, A. H., Busch, J., & Wreeker, R. (2003). Effect of viscosity, sodium caseinate and
oil on bitterness perception of olive oils phenolics. Food Quality and Preference,
15, 375–382.
Recchia, A., Monteleone, E., & Tuorila, H. (2012). Responses to extra virgin olive oils
in consumers with varying commitment to oils. Food Quality and Preference,
24(1), 153–161.
Robertson, L., & Sagiv, N. (Eds.). (2005). Synaesthesia: Perspectives from cognitive
neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.
Saint-Eve, A., Déléris, I., Panouillé, M., Dakowski, F., Cordelle, S., Schlisch, P., et al.
(2011). How texture influence aroma and taste perception over time in candies?
Chemosensory Perception, 4, 32–41.
Sandalidou, E., & Baourakis, G. (2002). Customers perspectives on the quality of
organic olive oil in Greece. A satisfaction evaluation approach. British Food
Journal, 104, 391–406.
Servili, M., Selvaggini, R., Esposto, S., Taticchi, A., Montedoro, G., & Morozzi, G.
(2004). Health and sensory properties of virgin olive oil hydrophilic phenols:
Agronomic and technological aspects of production that affect their occurrence
in the oil. Journal of Chromatography A, 1054(24), 113–127.
Sinesio, F., Moneta, E., & Esti, M. (2005). The dynamic sensory evaluation of
bitterness and pungency in virgin olive oil. Food Quality and Preference, 16,
557–564.
Stefani, G., Romano, D., & Cavicchi, A. (2006). Consumer expectations, liking and
willingness to pay for specialty foods: Do sensory characteristics tell the whole
story? Food Quality and Preference, 1–2, 53–62.
Stevenson, R. J., Prescott, J., & Boakes, R. A. (1999). Confusing tastes and smell: How
odours can influence the perception of sweet and sour tastes? Chemical Senses,
24, 627–635.