Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Explaining food texture through rheology
Helen S Joyner (Melito)
Building food rheology–sensory relationships allows food
scientists to predict textural attributes from instrumental
measurements. However, these relationships can be difficult to
determine due to the complex composition, structure of the food,
as well as the difficulties in accounting for the changes to the food
during oral processing. Novel rheological and sensorial analyses
are working toward a better understanding of food structural
breakdown, bolus development, and the associated properties
and attributes of the food as it undergoes these changes. These
analyses are uncovering some of the key unknown information
about food behaviors during oral processing, allowing progression
toward a universal set of rheological–sensory relationships.
Address
School of Food Science, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, United
States
Corresponding author: Joyner (Melito), Helen S (hjoyner@uidaho.edu)
Current Opinion in Food Science 2018, 21[1_TD$IF]:7–[2_TD$IF]14
This review comes from a themed issue on Sensory science and
consumer perception
Edited by Silvana Martini
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
Available online 24th April 2018
2214-7993/ã 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
A primary goal of food research is understanding links
between food rheological behaviors and sensory textures.
Sensory analysis is the gold standard for determining food
texture; however, descriptive sensory panel training and
maintenance is time-consuming and expensive [1]. Addi-
tionally, a trained panel can only evaluate about 6–8
samples in one session due to panelist fatigue and product
carryover effects [1]. Thus, food scientists use rheometry
to provide instrumental approximations of texture mea-
surements. Rheometry, which measures how materials
flow, deform, and fracture, provides quantitative informa-
tion on food mechanical properties that can be used to
indicate sensory textures and screen samples for trained
panel evaluation. However, there are multiple challenges
in using rheometry to indicate food textures, including:
1. Fundamental rheological tests are limited to samples
that are (reasonably) homogeneous and isotropic.
Foods that contain large particles, separate rapidly,
www.sciencedirect.com
or have anisotropic structures (e.g. meats, Mozzarella)
are difficult to analyze accurately.
2. Rheological tests can at best measure a few properties
of a food at a time; descriptive analysis panelists can
measure half a dozen or more textural attributes in a
single food simultaneously. Thus, multiple rheological
analyses are needed to collect sufficient information to
predict sensory texture.
3. With a few exceptions, rheological tests cannot mea-
sure temporal changes in sensory textures, including
saliva-induced changes.
4. Fundamental rheological tests cannot completely rep-
licate oral conditions and changes to food during
mastication. Thus, rheological behaviors relate well
to first-bite texture attributes but are often poorly
related to chewdown and residual sensory textures.
Despite these challenges, rheometry is still a promising
tool for understanding factors that influence food texture.
Because the way in which a food deforms, fractures, flows,
and breaks down is a key component of textural sensa-
tions, significant effort has been given to determining
relationships between food rheological behaviors and
sensory texture attributes. Determining these relation-
ships is relatively straightforward in simple food systems,
such as juices, milk, and single-component gels. How-
ever, rheology–sensory relationships are more difficult to
determine as food complexity increases and food scien-
tists have yet to determine a universal set of food
rheology–sensory relationships.
This review covers common and novel rheological and
sensory analyses currently in use, continues with a review
of how links between rheological and sensory data are
developed, and concludes with a brief discussion of
potential future areas of study. In this review, solid foods
defined as being capable of supporting their own weight
without sagging (e.g. Cheddar cheese), semisolid foods sag
under their own weight and flow slowly over time (e.g.
stirred yogurt), and fluid foods flow readily and take the
shape of their container (e.g. milk). Additionally, it should
be noted that the word ‘texture’ in this paper refers only
to sensory texture. Texture encompasses the variety of
sensations experienced by a human when food is manip-
ulated by the hands or in the mouth [1]; it can be
described by terms such as firmness, smoothness, sticki-
ness, grittiness, and mouthcoat. Instrumental tests can be
designed to measure mechanical properties that impact
texture attributes and approximate human actions used
during texture evaluation, but these tests cannot measure
texture attributes directly.
Current Opinion in Food Science 2018, 21:7–14
8 Sensory science and consumer perception
Rheological analyses
Standard rheological testing
Standard rheometry includes uniaxial compression/ten-
sion, rotational, and transient tests. Compressive and
tensile testing are used to determine large strain and
fracture behaviors of solid foods that can be sliced, bored,
or cast into the required shape. While semisolid foods
have been tested under compression, the data are often
not repeatable; rotational and oscillatory tests are more
suitable for semisolid samples. Recoverable energy, frac-
ture stress and strain, fracture energy, and adhesion
behaviors can be determined from fundamental compres-
sive testing (Figure 1a). Compressive and tensile data are
often related to first-bite sensory terms, such as firmness
and fracturability [2,3].
Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) is a two-cycle compres-
sion test that mimics the first two bites to a food
(Figure 1a). TPA parameters are often related to com-
pression sensory terms, such as firmness and adhesiveness
[4]. While this test can be used to build rheology–sensory
links, users of TPA should be careful not to violate TPA
assumptions (e.g. no sample fracture) and mindfully
select parameters for analysis, as not all parameters apply
to all samples (e.g. bread is not generally adhesive).
Steady shear (rotational) testing is typically performed on
semisolid and fluid samples, as a complete rotation of the
rheological attachment is required. Shear rate sweeps are
the most common steady-shear test performed on foods,
although yield stress tests and testing at a constant shear
rate to determine thixotropic behavior are also used.
Steady shear tests are used to determine viscosity profiles
and shear-dependent behaviors. Data from these tests are
often related to sensory viscosity, thickness, smoothness,
and slipperiness [5,6].
Transient testing can be performed on fluid, semisolid,
and solid foods, and includes stress relaxation, creep, and
oscillatory testing. These tests, particularly strain and
frequency sweeps, provide information about food visco-
elastic behaviors, which can be good indicators of sensory
textures such as firmness, chewing resistance, smooth-
ness, and adhesiveness [2,7,8]. They can also indicate
long-time flow behaviors, which may be important for
packaging selection [9] and shelf life determination.
While empirical analyses can and have been used to
determine food rheological behaviors, fundamental data
derived from the above analyses (or similar) are needed to
build strong rheology–sensory links that hold for more
than one food product.
Novel rheological analyses
Novel rheological analyses include transient testing at
large stresses and strains (Figure 1b), tribometry
(Figure 1c), and testing of food boli. Transient testing
Current Opinion in Food Science 2018, 21:7–14
of foods using larger strains, such as medium or large
amplitude oscillatory shear (MAOS and LAOS, respec-
tively) tests causes permanent deformation in the sample,
which can yield quantitative information about food
structural breakdown. Data from these analyses are often
shown in a Pipkin diagram, a collection of individual
Lissajous plots—plots of stress versus strain at a given
strain and frequency—arranged by frequency and strain
(Figure 1b), which allows changes in viscoelastic behavior
at different strains and frequencies to be easily viewed.
The nonlinear viscoelastic behaviors derived from MAOS
and LAOS analyses may relate better to sensory chew-
down and residual terms than traditional transient tests
that do not permanently deform the sample [10[1_TD$IF],11].
Tribological testing, relatively new to food science, mea-
sures food friction and lubrication behaviors. Tribological
data are typically plotted in Stribeck curves (Figure 1c)
and friction regime (boundary, mixed, or hydrodynamic)
assigned to different potions of the curve [13]. Soft
surfaces (e.g. silicone polymer gels) are used to mimic
the properties of oral surfaces for better ability to relate
instrumental friction data to friction-related sensory attri-
butes such as grittiness and astringency [12]. Human
saliva or a solution of alpha-amylase and mucins can be
added during testing to better replicate oral conditions
[13]. As friction is a system property [13], altering
testing surfaces or parameters can significantly impact the
resulting data. Thus, the tribological system should
closely mimic the oral system when generating data to
build tribology–sensory relationships.
During oral processing, food is broken down, mixed with
saliva, and formed into a bolus. This bolus often bears
little resemblance to the original food in terms of compo-
sition, physicochemical properties, and rheological prop-
erties. Because of their significant differences, there has
been increased interest of measuring the rheological
properties of the bolus as well as the original food. While
this practice can help improve understanding of chew-
down and temporal sensory attributes, it may be difficult
to generate repeatable data due to the inherent differ-
ences among boli produced at different points during oral
processing and by different subjects [14–17].
Sensory analyses
Standard analyses
Standard sensory analyses include descriptive analysis
and general consumer panels. Descriptive analysis
involves quantitative rating of various food sensory attri-
butes by a trained panel of 8–20 people [18]. While
considered the gold standard for sensory evaluation
because of its ability to produce quantitative data that
can be related to instrumental data through statistical
analyses, descriptive analysis techniques, such as the
Texture Profile Method, Quantitative Descriptive Anal-
ysis, and Spectrum, have several drawbacks. Training and
www.sciencedirect.com
 Explaining food texture through rheology Joyner (Melito) 9

Figure 1

Cycle 1 Cycle 2
(a)

Force

A1 A2 A4 A5
Time

L1 A3 L2

Recoverable energy: 100%(A2/A1)

Fracture Force: First peak in Cycle 1
Hardness: Peak force in Cycle 1
Cohesiveness: (A4+A5)/(A1+A2)
Adhesiveness: A3
Springiness: L2/L1
Gumminess: Hardness*Cohesiveness
Chewiness: Gumminess*Springiness

(b)
Frequency

Strain

(c)
Friction Coefficient

Sliding Speed
Current Opinion in Food Science

Sample results from (a) two cycle compression testing, (b) LAOS testing, (c) tribological testing.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Food Science 2018, 21:7–14

10 Sensory science and consumer perception
maintaining a calibrated panel is not only time-consum-
ing and expensive but requires significant amounts of
product and proper reference standards for calibration.
Thus, more rapid sensory methods that require less
training have become increasingly popular [18].
General consumer panels are mainly used to determining
preference or liking of foods. Texture liking data from
these panels can be related to both descriptive analysis
and rheological data to determine what attributes or
properties of a food are liked. Although consumer texture
preferences can vary widely, it is still possible to deter-
mine sensory–rheology relationships in these cases by
analyzing a subset of the data in which consumer pre-
ferences align.
Novel analyses
Sensory methods that use untrained panelists (consumers)
are becoming increasingly popular because they can be
performed rapidly and require little to no panelist training
[18]. Novel analyses used in consumer panels include flash
profiling, check all that apply (CATA) questions, and
napping [18]. Studies comparing descriptive analysis data
to novel untrained panel data have shown good agreement
[19–22]. Given this agreement, it is likely that the use of
these novel consumer analyses for food texture evaluation
will continue to increase in the future.
Temporal testing, which determines the changes in per-
ceived sensory attributes of foods during and after oral
processing, has become increasingly popular, as it can be
performed with untrained panelists and used to evaluate
multiple attributes simultaneously [23]. One popular
temporal method is temporal dominance of sensations,
in which panelists identify and rate dominant product
attributes; the dominant attribute is selected from a list
and may change over time [23]. Time intensity is a second
temporal method in which trained panelists rate the
intensity of selected attributes over time [23]. If temporal
testing is performed using a general consumer panel,
temporal CATA (TCATA) questions can be used;
TCATA questions can also be used with trained panelists
[24]. These methods can be used on solid, semisolid,
and fluid foods, and provide valuable information about
the changes in texture perception during consumption.
However, it can be challenging to relate temporal data to
rheological data because the changes in food structure
and composition during consumption are generally not
replicated in fundamental rheological testing.
Building rheology–sensory relationships
Statistical tools are typically used to build rheology–
sensory relationships; common statistical analyses include
regression, correlation, and principal component analyses
(Table 1). In general, both regression and correlation
analyses determine the strength of the relationship
between variables [25]. Regression analysis can also be
Current Opinion in Food Science 2018, 21:7–14
used to determine the impact of a potentially confound-
ing variable on a response, as it can be performed on more
than two variables simultaneously [25]. PCA is used for
large sets of potentially correlated variables to collapse
them into two linearly uncorrelated variables—the prin-
cipal components [1]. At least six different samples are
needed for a valid PCA. All of these analyses require
quantitative data and continuous (not discrete) variables.
It can be difficult to determine quantitative relationships
between rheological and sensory data if one of the data
sets cannot be collapsed into a single value or a small set of
values. Collapsing data into a single value may also result
in loss of valuable information, potentially leading to
incorrect conclusions. For example, viscosity at 50 s 1,
the shear rate historically correlated to perception of
multiple sensory attributes [26], is often used when com-
paring instrumental to sensory viscosity. However, select-
ing a single viscosity for comparison omits information on
flow behavior profiles, which may be critical for develop-
ing rheology–sensory relationships. If possible, a model
should be fit to the data set and the model parameters used
for developing relationships. For example, instrumental
viscosity data can be fit to a flow behavior model. If fitting
data to a model is not possible and selecting a single point
from the data set is not desired, then the trends of the
entire data set can be used to make qualitative compar-
isons. While this approach does not allow quantitative
analysis, it can be an important first step in understanding
relationships between rheological and sensory behaviors.
For example, comparing friction behaviors at different
sliding speeds to temporal data on food texture may yield
insight into how the food is manipulated orally during
consumption, how thin-layer behavior of the food devel-
ops over time, and why different textural sensations
dominate as the food is chewed and swallowed.
Currently, there is no universal method for developing
rheology–sensory relationships and a wide variety of
rheological and sensory analyses have been used to deter-
mine these relationships in different food products.
Table 1 summarizes the analyses used in recent studies,
along with the methods used to develop the relationships.
In general, descriptive analysis and standard rheometry
are most commonly used, although novel sensory and
rheological analyses are gaining traction.
Looking forward
While there have been significant strides in building
rheology–sensory relationships, there are still large gaps
in understanding how instrumental and human data con-
nect. To fill in some of these gaps, the following strategies
are recommended:
1. Increased collaboration is needed between groups
focusing on sensory science and groups focusing on
rheology and functional behaviors.
www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com

Table 1

Rheological, sensorial, and statistical analyses used recent food science studies that include development of rheological–sensory relationships.

Food evaluated Rheological analyses a Sensorial analyses b Statistical analyses c Reference

Bread TPA QDA PCA [27]
ANOVA + Tukey’s HSD
Bread SAOS viscoelastic behavior (bolus) Descriptive analysis ANOVA + SNK multiple comparison test [28]
TDS PCA
Gluten-free and wheat breads SAOS viscoelastic behavior (dough) Descriptive analysis ANOVA + Fisher’s LSD [29]
Compressive testing (AACC method General consumer liking panel
55–15.02, bread)
Gluten-free bread Compression Descriptive analysis ANOVA + Tukey-Kramer adjusted p-values [30]
Cookies Fracture behavior QDA ANOVA + Tukey’s HSD [31]
General consumer liking panel Pearson’s correlation
Gluten-free muffins SAOS viscoelastic behavior (batter) QDA ANOVA + Fisher’s LSD [32]
Temperature profile PCA
TPA (muffins)
Cheese curds TPA QDA Artificial neural network [33]
Yield stress
SAOS viscoelastic behavior
Petit suisse cheese Viscosity profile Projective mapping ANOVA + Tukey’s HSD [34]
Viscoelastic behavior MFA
HCA
Soft cheese Compressive testing (cheese and bolus) TDS ANOVA + SNK multiple comparison test [35]
Viscoelastic behavior (cheese and bolus) Progressive profiling PCA
Correlation
Dairy desserts Viscosity profile Pairwise ranking PCA [36]
SAOS viscoelastic behavior Friedman analysis

Explaining food texture through rheology Joyner (Melito) 11

Ice cream Viscosity profile TDS ANOVA + Fisher’s LSD [37]
Compressive testing General consumer liking panel containing MFA
CATA questions
Milk Viscosity profile Descriptive analysis ANOVA + Tukey’s HSD [38]
Tribological behaviors
Stirred yogurt Viscosity profile Flash profiling ANOVA + Fisher’s LSD [39]
Current Opinion in Food Science 2018, 21:7–14

Viscoelastic behavior General consumer liking panel GPA

MFA
Stirred yogurt Tribological behaviors Flash profiling GPA [40]
Pureed carrots Viscosity profile Descriptive analysis ANOVA + Tukey’s HSD [41]
Pearson’s two-tailed correlation
Pureed carrots Viscosity profile Descriptive analysis ANOVA + Tukey’s HSD [8]
SAOS viscoelastic behavior LSM
TPA
Mango jam Viscosity profile Descriptive analysis PCA [42]
Time-dependent behaviors Nonlinear regression
Compressive testing
Peaches and nectarines Compressive testing (puncture) Descriptive analysis ANOVA + Fisher’s LSD [43]
TPA PCA
PLS regression
12 Sensory science and consumer perception

2. Although new statistical analyses are available as the

GPA: generalized procrustes analysis; HCA: hierarchical cluster analysis; HSD: honestly significant difference; LSD: least significant difference; LSM: least square means; MFA: multiple factor
Reference

field of statistics evolves, many studies relating sensory

[49]
and rheological data use a simple ANOVA or linear
[44]

[45]
[46]

[47]

[48]

[22]
correlation. Statisticians should be included on the
research team to ensure that the analyses are appro-
priate for the data and encourage food scientists to

ANOVA + Tukey-Kramer adjusted p-values

explore more novel and sophisticated statistical
analyses.
3. Rheological analyses that better mimic oral conditions

Correlation by regression vector

Pearson correlation coefficients
Statistical analyses c

are needed to understand the specific pathways of food

breakdown during oral processing. In particular, best
ANOVA + Bonferroni test

External preference map

practices for characterization and incorporation of

ANOVA + Tukey’s HSD

ANOVA + Fisher’s LSD

saliva and/or salivary components during testing while
still gaining fundamental information are needed.
4. Research focused on understanding food textures
should include microstructure analyses. Many studies
ANOVA

ANOVA

measure food rheological and sensory behaviors but

GPA
PCA

PCA

PCA

PCA

not microstructural features. However, they are critical

to a fundamental understanding of food oral processing
behaviors.
General consumer liking panel containing

5. The current trend of cluster analysis in sensory science

should be extended to studies exploring rheology–
sensory relationships, as physiological differences (e.
Sensorial analyses b

General consumer liking panel

g. salivary composition and flowrate, type and speed of

CATA: check all that apply; QDA: quantitative descriptive analyses; TDS: temporal dominance of sensations.

jaw movements) may impact texture perception.

Progressive profiling
Descriptive analysis

Descriptive analysis

analysis; PCA: principal component analysis; PLS: partial least squares: SNK: Student Newman Keuls.

The complexity of foods combined with the challenge of

CATA questions

recreating the equally complex conditions during oral

Flash profiling

processing requires multidisciplinary collaborations to

make significant advances in development of fundamen-
QDA
TDS

TDS

TDS

tal food structure–function–texture relationships.

Although novel rheological and sensory techniques, such
as tribometry and temporal sensory analyses, have
revealed key insights into food behaviors during the past
few years, much work remains to develop a full under-
SAOS: small amplitude oscillatory shear; TPA: texture profile analysis.

standing of these relationships. Nevertheless, steady

Rheological analyses a

progress is being made toward the ultimate goal of rapid

Compressive testing (bolus)

Compressive testing (bolus)

instrumental tests that are able to predict sensory textures

over the entire duration of oral processing.
Fracture behavior (gels)
Bostwick consistency

Compressive testing
Temperature profile

Conflict of interest statement

Viscosity profile

Viscosity profile

Nothing declared.
Yield stress

Acknowledgements
TPA

TPA

The author would like to thank Carolyn Ross for her advice and feedback
on the content of this paper.

This study was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and
Agriculture, Hatch project 1005029.
High-protein nutrition bars

References and recommended reading

Sugar-free chocolate
Table 1 (Continued )

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,

Emulsion-filled gels

have been highlighted as:

Tomato ketchup
Food evaluated

Semi-solid gels

 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
Sausages
Sausages

1. Lawless HT, Heymann H: Physiological and psychological

foundations of sensory function. Sensory Evaluation of Foods:
b
a

Principles and Practices. New York, NY: Springer; 2010, 19-56.

Current Opinion in Food Science 2018, 21:7–14 www.sciencedirect.com


2. Melito HS, Daubert CR, Foegeding EA: Relationships between
nonlinear viscoelastic behavior and rheological, sensory and
oral processing behavior of commercial cheese. J Texture Stud
2013, 44:253-288.
3. Pascua Y, Koç H, Foegeding EA: Food structure: roles of
mechanical properties and oral processing in determining
sensory texture of soft materials. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci
2013, 18:324-333.
4. Chen J, Stokes JR: Rheology and tribology: two distinctive
regimes of food texture sensation. Trends Food Sci Technol
2012, 25:4-12.
5. Richardson RK, Morris ER, Ross-Murphy SB, Taylor LJ, Dea ICM:
Characterization of the perceived texture of thickened
systems by dynamic viscosity measurements. Food
Hydrocolloids 1989, 3:175-191.
6. Kokini JL: The physical basis of liquid food texture and texture–
taste interactions. J Food Eng 1987, 6:51-81.
7. Wendin K, Ekman S, Bülow M, Ekberg O, Johansson D,
Rothenberg E, Stading M: Objective and quantitative definitions
of modified food textures based on sensory and rheological
methodology. Food Nutr Res 2010, 54:5134.
8. Sharma M, Kristo E, Corredig M, Duizer L: Effect of hydrocolloid
type on texture of pureed carrots: rheological and sensory
measures. Food Hydrocolloids 2017, 63:478-487.
9. Paine FA, Paine HY: A Handbook of Food Packaging. Springer
Science & Business Media; 2012.
10. Duvarci OC, Yazar G, Kokini JL: The SAOS, MAOS and LAOS
 behavior of a concentrated suspension of tomato paste and its
prediction using the Bird-Carreau (SAOS) and Giesekus
models (MAOS-LAOS). J Food Eng 2017, 208:77-88.
Tomato paste rheological behaviors over a large range of strains were fit
to constitutive models; this paper is one of the first to fit nonlinear
rheological behaviors of food to a model. Modeling nonlinear rheological
data in this manner allows for better simulation of food rheological
behaviors during processing conditions.
11. Yazar G, Duvarci OC, Tavman S, Kokini JL: Effect of mixing on
LAOS properties of hard wheat flour dough. J Food Eng 2016,
190:195-204.
12. Prakash S, Tan DDY, Chen J: Applications of tribology in
studying food oral processing and texture perception. Food
Res Int 2013, 54:1627-1635.
13. Pradal C, Stokes JR: Oral tribology: bridging the gap between
 physical measurements and sensory experience. Curr Opin
Food Sci 2016, 9:34-41.
This review article provides an excellent summary of the current under-
standing of food tribology. The discussion includes tribological testing
setups, surface selection, saliva addition, and relationships of friction
behaviors to rheological, sensory, and oral processing behaviors.
14. Loret C, Walter M, Pineau N, Peyron MA, Hartmann C, Martin N:
Physical and related sensory properties of a swallowable
bolus. Physiol Behav 2011, 104:855-864.
15. Drago SR, Panouillé M, Saint-Eve A, Neyraud E, Feron G,
Souchon I: Relationships between saliva and food bolus
properties from model dairy products. Food Hydrocolloids
2011, 25:659-667.
16. Yven C, Patarin J, Magnin A, Labouré H, Repoux M, Guichard E,
Feron G: Consequences of individual chewing strategies on
bolus rheological properties at the swallowing threshold. J
Texture Stud 2012, 43:309-318.
17. Fukatsu H, Nohara K, Kotani Y, Tanaka N, Matsuno K, Sakai T:
Endoscopic evaluation of food bolus formation and its
relationship with the number of chewing cycles. J Oral Rehabil
2015, 42:580-587.
18. Varela P, Ares G: Sensory profiling, the blurred line between
sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for
product characterization. Food Res Int 2012, 48:893-908.
19. Cruz AG, Cadena RS, Castro WF, Esmerino EA, Rodrigues JB,
Gaze L, Faria JAF, Freitas MQ, Deliza R, Bolini HMA: Consumer
perception of probiotic yogurt: performance of check all that
www.sciencedirect.com
Explaining food texture through rheology Joyner (Melito) 13
apply (CATA), projective mapping, sorting and intensity scale.
Food Res Int 2013, 54:601-610.
20. Bruzzone F, Ares G, Giménez A: Temporal aspects of yoghurt
texture perception. Int Dairy J 2013, 29:124-134.
21. Cadena RS, Caimi D, Jaunarena I, Lorenzo I, Vidal L, Ares G,
Deliza R, Giménez A: Comparison of rapid sensory
characterization methodologies for the development of
functional yogurts. Food Res Int 2014, 64:446-455.
22. Devezeaux de Lavergne M, van Delft M, van de Velde F, van
Boekel MA, Stieger M: Dynamic texture perception and oral
processing of semi-solid food gels: part 1: comparison
between QDA, progressive profiling and TDS. Food
Hydrocolloids 2015, 43:207-217.
23. Di Monaco R, Su C, Masi P, Cavella S: Temporal dominance of
sensations: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 2014, 38:104-112.
24. Castura JC, Antúnez L, Giménez A, Ares G: Temporal Check-All-
 That-Apply (TCATA): a novel dynamic method for
characterizing products. Food Qual Prefer 2016, 47:79-90.
This manuscript introduces Temporal Check All That Apply (TCATA)
questions as a method of evaluating food sensory attributes over time.
The results laid the groundwork for refinement of the TCATA method,
including its use with untrained panelists.
25. Granato D, de Araújo Calado VM, Jarvis B: Observations on the
use of statistical methods in Food Science and Technology.
Food Res Int 2014, 55:137-149.
26. Stokes JR, Boehm MW, Baier SK: Oral processing, texture and
mouthfeel: from rheology to tribology and beyond. Curr Opin
Colloid Interface Sci 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cocis.2013.04.010.
27. Scheuer PM, Luccio MD, Zibetti AW, Miranda MZ, Francisco A:
Relationship between instrumental and sensory texture
profile of bread loaves made with whole-wheat flour and fat
replacer. J Texture Stud 2016, 47:14-23.
28. Panouille M, Saint-Eve A, Deleris I, Le Bleis F, Souchon I: Oral
processing and bolus properties drive the dynamics of salty
and texture perceptions of bread. Food Res Int 2014, 62:238-
246.
29. Wolter A, Hager A-S, Zannini E, Czerny M, Arendt EK: Influence of
dextran-producing Weissella cibaria on baking properties and
sensory profile of gluten-free and wheat breads. Int J Food
Microbiol 2014, 172:83-91.
30. Bize M, Smith BM, Aramouni FM, Bean SR: The effects of egg
and diacetyl tartaric acid esters of monoglycerides addition on
storage stability, texture, and sensory properties of gluten-
free sorghum bread. J Food Sci 2017, 82:194-201.
31. Laguna L, Primo-Martı́n C, Varela P, Salvador A, Sanz T: HPMC
and inulin as fat replacers in biscuits: sensory and
instrumental evaluation. LWT Food Sci Technol 2014, 56:494-
501.
32. Herranz B, Canet W, Jiménez MJ, Fuentes R, Alvarez MD:
Characterisation of chickpea flour-based gluten-free batters
and muffins with added biopolymers: rheological, physical
and sensory properties. Int J Food Sci Technol 2016, 51:1087-
1098.
33. Carvalho NB, Minim VPR, Silva RdCdS, Della Lucia SM, Minim LA:
Artificial neural networks (ANN): prediction of sensory
measurements from instrumental data. Food Sci Technol Camp
2013, 33:722-729.
34. Pereira EPR, Cavalcanti RN, Esmerino EA, Silva R, Guerreiro LRM,
Cunha RL, Bolini HMA, Meireles MA, Faria JAF, Cruz AG: Effect of
incorporation of antioxidants on the chemical, rheological,
and sensory properties of probiotic petit suisse cheese. J Dairy
Sci 2016, 99:1762-1772.
35. Saint-Eve A, Panouille M, Capitaine C, Deleris I, Souchon I:
Dynamic aspects of texture perception during cheese
consumption and relationship with bolus properties. Food
Hydrocolloids 2015, 46:144-152.
36. Arancibia C, Castro C, Jublot L, Costell E, Bayarri S: Colour,
rheology, flavour release and sensory perception of dairy
Current Opinion in Food Science 2018, 21:7–14
14 Sensory science and consumer perception
desserts. influence of thickener and fat content. LWT Food Sci
Technol 2015, 62:408-416.
37. Varela P, Pintor A, Fiszman S: How hydrocolloids affect the
temporal oral perception of ice cream. Food Hydrocolloids
2014, 36:220-228.
38. Li Y, Joyner HS, Lee AP, Drake MA: Impact of pasteurization
 method and fat on milk: relationships among rheological,
tribological, and astringency behaviors. Int Dairy J 2018, 78:28-
35.
This study provides a comprehensive picture of milk structure, viscosity,
friction behavior, and sensory texture over an 8-week storage time. While
fiction behaviors did correlate with milk astringency, friction behaviors
alone were not able to predict milk astringency. These results suggest a
complex astringency mechanism that is more than simple changes in
friction behaviors.
39. Morell P, Hernando I, Llorca E, Fiszman S: Yogurts with an
increased protein content and physically modified starch:
rheological, structural, oral digestion and sensory properties
related to enhanced satiating capacity. Food Res Int 2015,
70:64-73.
40. Morell P, Chen J, Fiszman S: The role of starch and saliva in
 tribology studies and the sensory perception of protein-added
yogurts. Food Funct 2017, 8:545-553.
This study showed that addition of both starch and saliva has significant
impact on yogurt tribological behaviors, regardless of formulation. Similar
to Ref. [38], this study shows that astringency of yogurt is complex and
cannot be predicted by friction behavior alone.
41. Juvonen R, Honkapää K, Maina NH, Shi Q, Viljanen K,
Maaheimo H, Virkki L, Tenkanen M, Lantto R: The impact of
fermentation with exopolysaccharide producing lactic acid
bacteria on rheological, chemical and sensory properties of
pureed carrots (Daucus carota L.). Int J Food Microbiol 2015,
207:109-118.
42. Basu S, Shivhare US: Rheological, textural, microstructural,
and sensory properties of sorbitol-substituted mango jam.
Food Bioprocess Technol 2013, 6:1401-1413.
Current Opinion in Food Science 2018, 21:7–14
43. Contador L, Dı́az M, Hernández E, Shinya P, Infante R: The
relationship between instrumental tests and sensory
determinations of peach and nectarine texture. Eur J Hoticult
Sci 2017, 81:189-196.
 M, Mastilovic
44. Torbica A, Belovic  J, Kevrean , Pestoric
 M, krobot D,
Hadnapev TD: Nutritional, rheological, and sensory evaluation
of tomato ketchup with increased content of natural fibres
made from fresh tomato pomace. Food Bioprod Process 2016,
98:299-309.
45. Devezeaux de Lavergne M, Derks JA, Ketel EC, de Wijk RA,
Stieger M: Eating behaviour explains differences between
individuals in dynamic texture perception of sausages. Food
Qual Prefer 2015, 41:189-200.
46. da Conceição Jorge É, Mendes ACG, Auriema BE, Cazedey HP,
Fontes PR, Ramos A, de LS, Ramos EM: Application of a check-
all-that-apply question for evaluating and characterizing meat
products. Meat Sci 2015, 100:124-133.
47. Rezende NV, Benassi MT, Vissotto FZ, Augusto PP,
Grossmann MV: Mixture design applied for the partial
replacement of fat with fibre in sucrose-free chocolates. LWT
Food Sci Technol 2015, 62:598-604.
48. Banach JC, Clark S, Lamsal BP: Instrumental and sensory
texture attributes of high-protein nutrition bars formulated
with extruded milk protein concentrate. J Food Sci 2016, 81.
49. Devezeaux de Lavergne M, Tournier C, Bertrand D, Salles C, Van
 de Velde F, Stieger M: Dynamic texture perception, oral
processing behaviour and bolus properties of emulsion-filled
gels with and without contrasting mechanical properties. Food
Hydrocolloids 2016, 52:648-660.
This study examines oral processing and temporal sensory texture of
filled gels, as well as the rheological behaviors of the gels and gel boli.
These data provide a comprehensive picture of how the gels are broken
down and texture perception changes during oral processing. In parti-
cular, texture changes bilayer gels were able to be tracked; the authors
pointed out that the methods used for determining textural changes could
be used on complex layered foods, such as sandwich cookies.
www.sciencedirect.com