Individuality of understanding and assessment of sensory attributes of foods, in particular, tenderness of meat

Abstract This study examines the extent to which variations in consumers' sensory assessments of food arise from the inability to report accurately sensory perceptions, from confusion regarding the criteria by which to assess samples, or from differences in their oral breakdown of the products. Twenty consumers assessed the tenderness of a range of 8 hot, freshly roasted meat samples using Time Intensity (TI). Overall a significant correlation was found between the maximum recorded intensity (Imax) of their TI curves and single sensory scores given by a trained panel. Correlation was significant for only 42% of the consumers individually. Significant correlations were found between the amount of masticatory muscle activity undertaken during chewing (measured using electromyography) and Imax for all but 2 of the consumers. Thus subjects' perceptions were accurately described by their chewing work, suggesting between subject differences in perception arose from differences in the way chewing work was applied to break down the samples. The sensory input from the masticatory muscles may represent the major determinant of perceived tenderness of meat.

[1]  Tormod Næs,et al.  Handling individual differences between assessors in sensory profiling , 1990 .

[2]  P. Sherman,et al.  EVALUATION OF SOME TEXTURAL PROPERTIES OF FOODS WITH THE INSTRON UNIVERSAL TESTING MACHINE , 1973 .

[3]  Margaret A. Brandt,et al.  Development of standard rating scales for mechanical parameters of texture and correlation between the objective and the sensory methods of texture evaluation , 1963 .

[4]  Garmt Dijksterhuis,et al.  Multivariate data analysis in sensory and consumer science: An overview of developments , 1995 .

[5]  T. R. Dutson,et al.  VARIATION AND REPEATABILITY OF AN UNTRAINED BEEF SENSORY PANEL , 1979 .

[6]  Wendy E. Brown,et al.  Association between chewing efficiency and mastication patterns for meat, and influence on tenderness perception , 1996 .

[7]  H. Macfie,et al.  Developments in the analysis of time-intensity curves , 1992 .

[8]  Margaret A. Brandt,et al.  Texture Profile Method , 1963 .

[9]  D. Park Controlling aflatoxin in food and feed. , 1993 .

[10]  Gail Vance Civille,et al.  GUIDELINES TO TRAINING A TEXTURE PROFILE PANEL , 1973 .

[11]  L. Duizer,et al.  THE EFFECT OF MASTICATORY PATTERNS AS MEASURED BY TIME-INTENSITY AND ELECTROMYOGRAPHY ON THE PERCEPTION OF BOVINE MUSCLE TENDERNESS , 1994 .

[12]  S. Ritchey,et al.  Tenderness of Beef. , 1962 .

[13]  E. A. Gullett,et al.  Time‐Intensity Methodology for Beef Tenderness Perception , 1993 .

[14]  Per M. Brockhoff,et al.  Modelling individual differences between assessors in sensory evaluations , 1994 .

[15]  Hildegarde Heymann,et al.  Development and use of time-intensity methodology for sensory evaluation: A review , 1993 .

[16]  Wendy E. Brown,et al.  DIVERSITY OF PERCEPTIONS OF MEAT TENDERNESS AND JUICINESS BY CONSUMERS: A TIME‐INTENSITY STUDY , 1996 .

[17]  BITE FORCE AND SAMPLE DEFORMATION DURING HARDNESS ASSESSMENT OF VISCOELASTIC MODELS OF FOODS , 1994 .

[18]  Wendy E. Brown,et al.  INFLUENCE OF CHEWING EFFICIENCY ON TEXTURE AND FLAVOUR PERCEPTIONS OF FOOD , 1996 .