1  

                 

Personal  Preferences  through  Sensory  Evaluation:    A  Detailed  Study  of  Perception,  Association,    

and  Difference                                                          Rebecca  DeHamer  April  16,  2012  NUTR  205L,  Section  1  Introduction  to  the  Science  of  Food  

  2  

Abstract  The  decision  to  purchase  one  brand  of  product  over  another  of  the  same  product  is  based  on  multiple  factors,  one  being  the  preferences  and  opinions  of  each  consumer’s  sensory  perception.  The  purpose  of  the  sensory  evaluation  lab  was  to  teach  students  about  the  process  of  making  impartial  conclusions  during  a  sensory  tests  based  on  given  methods  and  characteristics.  Results  of    description  and  associations  of  the  food  samples  were  gathered  from  forty-‐three  student  panelists  in  a  San  Diego  State  University  food  laboratory  setting  from  an  Introduction  to  Science  of  Food  course.    The  panelist  evaluations  included:  the  color  of  beverages  based  on  a  five-‐point  scale,  difference  tests  using  samples  of  apple  juice  with  varying  degrees  of  citric  acid,  a  paired  comparison  test,  a  triangle  test,  a  scoring  test,  and  a  ranking  test.  Participation  also  included:  a  duo  trio  test  using  Nabisco  Nilla  Wafers  and  Safeway  Vanilla  Wafers,  and  a  series  of  descriptive  tests  for  appearance,  flavor,  texture,  aroma,  and  consistency  of  goldfish  crackers,  raisins,  almonds,  and  marshmallows  individually.  Results  revealed  beverage  associations  of  sweetness,  sourness,  and  naturalness  with  yellow  coloring,  and  artificiality  with  emerald  coloring.  Panelists  were  able  to  accurately  differentiate  between  sample  mixtures  of  apple  juice  with  varying  degrees  of  citric  acid,  and  most    preferred  the  pure  apple  juice  without  any  added  citric  acid.  Overall,  the  students  were  able  to  make  objective  evaluations  throughout  the  lab  procedures  allowing  thorough  experimental  data  collection.                                                  

  3  

Introduction  

  The  decision  to  purchase  one  brand  of  product  over  another,  is  based  on  

multiple  factors,  including:  the  preferences  and  opinions  of  each  consumer’s  

sensory  perception.  Food  manufacturers  spend  large  sums  of  money  every  year  

testing  and  analyzing  data  to  promote  sales  and  progress  of  their  company.  

Human  subject  sensory  evaluation  tests  are  used  in  research  and  development  

departments  to  generate  and  evaluate  products  on  an  on-‐going  basis.  Objectivity  

remains  a  key  question  due  to  the  necessity  of  such  human  subjects,  maintaining  

their  classification  as  subjective  tests.  Sensory  tests  are  broken  down  into  two  

categories  of  affective  tests  and  analytical  tests.  Affective  tests    focus  on  

consumer  preference  in  specific  aspects  of  food  testing.  Analytical  tests  

emphasize  the  objectivity  through  further  categorizing  as  discriminative  (are  

samples  different),  and  descriptive  (how  the  samples  are  different)  tests.  

Examples  of  discriminative  tests  include:  triangle,  duo-‐trio,  paired  comparison,  

and  ranking  tests.  Triangle  tests  offer  three  samples,  requiring  identification  of  

which  sample  is  specifically  different  out  of  the  three.  A  duo-‐trio  test  presents  

three  samples  (one  set  as  a  standard),  asking  the  panelist  to  find  which  sample  is  

the  same  as  that  standard.  A  paired  comparison  test  offers  two  samples  and  asks  

which  has  more  of  a  known  characteristic.  A  ranking  test  presents  multiple  

samples  and  requires  the  panelist  to  rank  from  lowest  to  highest  of  the  

characteristic  that  is  given  (Brown  2010).  When  carrying  out  these  tests,  taste  

  4  

panel  instructors  must  be  strict  on  test  presentation  and  panelist’s  pallet  before  

and  during  testing,  in  order  to  get  the  most  reliable  sensory  results.    

  Color  is  a  major  visual  factor  in  the  decision  process  of  food  consumption.  

In  a  series  of  experimental  sensory  tests  conducted  by  Sandra  et  al.  in  2004,  

color  was  one  of  the  sensory  factors  effecting  the  evaluation  of  crumbling  cheese  

samples.  These  researchers  found  a  negative  correlation  reported  by  their  

panelists  from  the  change  in  natural  color  pallet  for  each  cheese  sample.  

Consumers  have  parameters  for  color  trends  among  different  food  products.  

Food  companies  adhere  to  these  trends  for  successful  growth  and  sales  of  their  

products  in  the  market.  Beverages,  often  being  displayed  in  clear  containers,  can  

be  associated  with  color  parameters  as  well.  Vision  is  the  first  sensory  evaluating  

process  used  to  gather  perceptions  about  the  food  product  or  beverage  being  

presented  (Brown  2010).    

  In  a  study  conducted  by  Shankar  et  al.    in  2010,  subjects  were  asked  to  

identify  a  beverage  after  using  the  senses  of  taste  and  smell  as  evaluation  factors.    

Color  remained  a  strong  sensory  tool  for  the  participants  as  they  provided  data  

that  correlated  flavors  of  Orange  and  Grape  with  corresponding  colors.  Even  

when  instructed  to  ignore  color  cues,  participants  relied  on  color  when  taste  and  

smell  differences  were  miniscule  (Shankar  2010).    

  Texture  can  be  equally  vital  in  the  process  of  evaluating  food  products.  

Food  companies  focus  on  particular  pleasing  textures  specific  to  each  food  

product  through  sensory  testing  data.  Consumers  have  strong  associations  with  

  5  

textures  that  may  represent  specific  food  freshness,  healthiness,  richness,  and  or  

quality  (Brown  2010).  In  a  study  by  Ioannides  et  al.  in  2009,  subject’s  sensory  

sensitivity  and  reliability  of  texture  was  found  to  be  as  good  as  

electromyography  (EMG)  of  the  masticatory  muscles’  sensitivity  and  

repeatability.    Repeated  trials  showed  sensory  results  that  matched  subjects  

reporting  of  texture  with  the  data  collected  from  the  EMG.  The  simple  memory  of  

known  texture  was  as  strong  as  the  results  gathered  from  the  muscle  sensitivity  

data  when  chewing.  These  results  aide  in  the  explanation  towards  the  

importance  of  food  sensations  such  as  texture,  consistency,  and  mouthfeel.    

   Although  these  senses  are  strong  and  show  sensitivity  to  change,  they  

have  also  been  shown  to  be  widely  variable  and  subjective.  In  a  study  by  Marzec  

et  al.  in  2010,  varying  degrees  and  temperatures  evaluated  the  textures  of  dried  

apples.  Panelists  evaluated  each  apple  type,  based  on  overall  quality,  taste,  odor,  

hardness,  and  color.  Data  revealed  that  textural  preferences  of  the  apple  food  

products  differed  greatly  from  subject  to  subject  (Marzec  et  al.  2010).  Consumer  

preferences  cannot  always  be  predicted  to  follow  known  patterns  of  group  liking  

and  should  remain  one  of  the  wonderful  individualities  known  to  humans.    

  In  order  to  examine  these  parameters,  sensory  evaluations  can  be  carried  

out  by  a  variety  of  tests.  Objectivity  and  subjectivity  remain  important  factors  in  

the  choosing  of  each  for  specific  experimental  parameters.  A  variety  of  tests  

were  used  within  this  analysis,  including  the  Triangle  test,  which  was  specifically  

examined  on  its’    ability  to  be  used  as  such  in  a  study  by  McClure  et  al.  2010.  

  6  

McClure  et  al.  found  that  the  Triangle  test  was  effective  in  this  parameter  to  

indicate  consumer  preference  through  discrimination  testing.  Tests  like  this  can  

guide  Food  manufacturers  towards  the  wants  and  needs  of  their  consumers  

when  used  appropriately,  with  data  collected  from  solid  sensory  testing  

methods.    

  The  purpose  of  this  sensory  evaluation  lab  was  to  teach  the  student  

participants  how  to  evaluate  foods  objectively  based  on  determined  features  

using  descriptive  terms  and  various  taste  testing  processes.  At  the  end  of  the  

sensory  evaluation  lab,  the  student  panelists  have  studied  how  to  properly  

conduct  a  series  of  sensory  tests  and  can  proceed  in  these  evaluation  methods  

with  future  work.  Students  learned  how  to  evaluate  the  color  of  the  beverage  and  

how  this  effects  the  judgment  perception  of  that  beverage.  The  participants  

learned  how  to  evaluate  foods  based  on  appearance,  flavor,  texture,  aroma,  and  

consistency.  The  subjects  also  experienced  identifying  differences  in  samples  

with  or  without  a  standard  sample  for  comparison.  Finally,  the  panelists  learned  

to  rank  food  samples  in  an  order  of  intensity  and  preference.  This  sensory  

evaluation  lab  included  a  beverage  color  association  test,  a  paired  comparison  

test,  a  triangle  test,  a  scoring  test,  a  ranking  test,  a  duo-‐trio  test,  and  a  descriptive  

test.    

Methods  

Panelists  

  7  

  The  panelists  were  asked  to  answer  an  eight  point  Demographic  

Questionnaire.  Please  refer  to  the  appendix  concerning  the  specific  content  for  

all  questionnaires  discussed  in  this  manuscript,  if  not  specified  already  to  do  so.  

All  questionnaires  used  in  this  evaluation  were  filled  out  by  a  single  individual  

panelist  and  recorded  as  such  through  collection  and  the  raising  of  hands  by  an  

individual  Teacher’s  assistant  not  included  in  the  panelist  pool.  The  panelists  

consisted  of  43  untrained  SDSU  students  enrolled  in  the  Introduction  to  the  

Science  of  Food  nutrition  class.  All  of  the  panelists  were  nutrition  majors.  21  of  

the  panelists  performed  the  methods  at  a  9:00  a.m.  meeting,  and  the  remaining  

22  performed  the  methods  at  1:00  p.m.  The  ages  of  the  panelists  ranged  from  19  

years  old  to  43  years  old,  with  a  mean  age  of  22.8  and  a  standard  deviation  of  

3.87.  The  majority  of  the  panelists  were  female,  88%,  and  only  12%  were  male.  

For  student  status,  86%  were  undergraduates,  14%  were  graduate  students.  For  

marital  status,  88%  were  never  married,  9%  were  married,  and  2%  were  

divorced.  For  living  arrangements,  5%  were  living  alone,  28%  were  living  with  

one  roommate,  and  67%  were  living  with  two  or  more  roommates.  Concerning  

allergies,  88%  did  not  identify  with,  and  12%  did  identify  with.  Additionally,  

98%  were  nonsmokers,  and  2%  were  smokers.    

Environment  

  The  evaluation  of  the  Standards  of  Identity  and  Standards  of  Reasonable  

Quality  for  fruit  cocktail  took  place  at  San  Diego  State  University’s  food  science  

lab  room  (West  Commons  203).  All  procedures  were  conducted  under  

  8  

reasonably  controlled  conditions  (light  control,  humidity,  and  temperature).  

Lighting  was  a  constant  dim,  sufficient  for  working  conditions;  humidity  and  

temperature  were  within  a  normal  range  (40-‐45%  and  20-‐24°C).  The  room  set-‐

up  had  standard  academic  seating  arrangements  (individual  desk-‐chairs)  with  5  

rows  of  6  in  the  center  surrounded  by  kitchen  lab  equipment.  On  two  sides  of  the  

desk  arrangement  were  sets  of  stove  top-‐tables  (3  per  side)  housing  two  per  

table.  In  addition,  were  3  sinks  per  side  for  hand  washing,  food  washing,  and  

dishwashing,  accordingly.  At  the  front  of  the  room  was  a  corner  dedicated  to  

ovens,  housing  6  convection-‐stacked  2  per  unit-‐all  below  a  ventilation  structure.  

At  the  center  of  the  front  and  rear  of  the  room  are  larger  desks  for  instruction  

and  multi-‐use.  Cabinetry  surrounds  the  whole  room  for  storage.  The  lab  room  

has  no  windows,  but  two  doors  located  at  the  front  corners.    Doors  were  kept  

shut  during  the  procedure.    

Color  Association/Beverage  Perception  

  The  panelists  were  presented  with  five  different  beverages  of  varying  

colors  and  were  asked  to  rank  for  certain  parameters.  Each  participant  recorded  

his  or  her  results  on  the  Sensory  Testing  Beverage  Questionnaire  (see  

Appendix).  The  drink  color  was  the  only  ranking  evaluation  characteristic.  The  

test  was  ranked  on  a  5-‐point  scale,  with  five  being  the  most,  four  being  almost  

the  most,  three  being  in  the  middle,  two  being  almost  least,  and  one  being  the  

least.  The  colors  consisted  of  light  yellow,  dark  yellow,  chartreuse,  dark  

chartreuse,  and  emerald  green  placed  right  to  left,  respectively  at  the  front  of  the  

  9  

room  in  uniform  beaters.  The  panelists  gave  each  beverage  a  rating  of  1-‐5  for  the  

perceived  sweetness,  sourness,  artificiality,  naturalness,  and  which  drink  the  

student  preferred  or  disliked  the  most.  In  addition  to  rating,  the  participants  

were  asked  to  record  preferred  temperature  of  the  beverage  as  hot,  war,  tepid,  

or  cold.  Lastly,  the  panelists  recorded  whether  or  not  they  would  drink  the  

beverages.  The  information  logged  by  the  subjects  on  the  Sensory  Testing  

Beverage  Questionnaire  was  tallied  and  compiled  by  the  lab  instructor  and  

assistant  using  a  show-‐of-‐hands  method.    

Difference  Tests  

  The  panelists  conducted  a  series  of  difference  tests,  including  a  paired  

comparison  test,  a  triangle  test,  a  scoring  test,  a  ranking  test,  and  a  duo-‐trio  test.  

The  paired  comparison,  triangle,  scoring  and  ranking  tests  used  samples  of  pure  

apple  juice  and  mixtures  of  apple  juice  with  added  citric  acid.  The  duo-‐trio  test  

was  conducted  using  vanilla  wafer  cookies.  All  of  the  products  were  served  in  

small,  white,  uniform  soufflé  cups  and  panelists  tasted  each  food  individually.  

Water  was  available  for  the  panelists  to  cleanse  their  pallet,  and  was  served  in  

white  Styrofoam  cups.  Panelists  recorded  their  evaluation  on  Sensory  Evaluation  

Duo-‐Trio  Test  and  Scoring  or  Rating  Test  sheet  (see  Appendix).  

  The  paired  comparison  test  measured  which  sample  of  apple  juice  was  

the  sourest.  The  Panelists  tasted  two  samples  labeled:  635T1  and  573T2.  All  

participants  walked  to  the  front  of  the  lab  to  take  small  samples  and  refrained  

from  taking  the  sample  until  all  participants  had  theirs  to  partake  together.  They  

  10  

recorded  their  perceived  results  on  the  Paired  Comparison  Test  table,  located  in  

the  Nutrition  205  lab  manual  (see  Appendix).  The  sample  coded  635T1  was  pure  

apple  juice  and  the  sample  coded  573T2  was  a  mixture  of  apple  juice  and  1%  

citric  acid.  For  the  triangle  test,  panelists  identified  which  two  samples  of  apple  

juice  were  alike  and  which  were  different.  The  samples  were  labeled:  777C1,  

542E2,  and  112H9.  Students  recorded  their  results  on  the  Triangle  Test  table  in  

the  Nutrition  205  lab  manual  (see  Appendix).  Samples  777C1  and  542E2  were  

both  pure  apple  juice.  Sample  112H9  was  different  from  the  others,  containing  a  

mixture  of  apple  juice  and  1%  citric  acid.    

  For  the  scoring  test,  panelists  were  given  three  samples  of  apple  juice  to  

taste.  There  was  one  reference  sample,  labeled  0110.  This  sample  was  given  a  

ranking  score  of  4  on  a  1-‐7  scale,  with  1  being  the  sourest,  and  7  being  the  

sweetest.  Samples  420M  and  S723  were  unknown  to  the  panelists  who  had  to  

place  them  on  the  scale  by  their  taste  interpretation.  The  participants  recorded  

their  ranking  son  the  Sensory  Evaluation  sheet  (Appendix  B).  The  reference  

sample  (0110)  had  2.5%  citric  acid,  the  unknown  sample  (420M)  had  1%  citric  

acid,  and  the  unknown  sample  (S723)  had  5%  citric  acid.  

  In  the  ranking  test,  the  panelists  were  given  five  samples  of  apple  juice.  

They  ranked  the  five  samples  in  order  of  intensity  based  on  sourness;  1  as  the  

sourest  and  5  as  the  least  sour.  The  participants  ranked  the  samples  in  order  of  

preference,  following  the  same  scale.  The  results  were  recorded  on  the  Ranking  

Test  table  in  the  Nutrition  205  lab  manual  (see  Appendix).  Sample  495P2  was  

  11  

pure  apple  juice,  543K8  had  1%  citric  acid,  695F8  had  2.5%  citric  acid,  192L3  

had  5%  citric  acid,  and  555D7  had  10%  citric  acid.  

  Panelists  were  presented  with  three  vanilla  wafer  cookies  during  the  duo-‐

trio  test.  Sample  8175  was  set  as  the  standard  as  Nabisco  Nilla  Wafers.  The  

panelists  tasted  samples  6104  and  1108,  and  recorded  which  vanilla  wafer  

differed  from  the  standard  and  why.  Sample  1108  was  the  same  as  the  standard,  

and  6104  was  the  Safeway  brand  vanilla  wafers.  The  panelists  recorded  their  

findings  on  the  sensory  evaluation  sheet  (see  Appendix).    

Descriptive  Tests  

  The  descriptive  tests  required  the  panelists  to  evaluate  four  different  food  

products  using  descriptive  terms.  Each  sample  was  evaluated  based  on  its  

appearance,  aroma,  flavor,  texture,  and  consistency.  The  students  were  given  2-‐3  

bites  of  marshmallows,  raisins,  goldfish  crackers,  and  almonds  that  were  all  

presented  in  uniform,  white,  soufflé  cups.  The  panelists  were  provided  with  a  list  

of  descriptive  terms  that  they  were  allowed  to  use  for  each  characteristics  (see  

Appendix).    

Statistical  Analysis  

  The  course  instructor  and  lab  assistant  recorded  the  results  of  each  test  

from  all  of  the  participants.  They  were  able  to  record  the  beverage  color  and  

association  test,  scoring  test,  ranking  test,  descriptive  test,    paired  comparison,  

triangle,  and  duo-‐trio  tests  using  a  show-‐of-‐hands  method  as  well  as  

  12  

questionnaire  techniques.  All  of  this  data  was  entered  and  compiled  into  an  excel  

spreadsheet.  The  results  from  the  two  sections  were  combined.    

Results  

Color  Association  /Beverage  Perception  

  All  the  panelists  participated  in  beverage  association  activity.  When  asked  

which  beverage  they  thought  was  the  sweetest,  37.2%  of  the  panelists  recorded  

light  yellow,  30.2%  dark  yellow,  18.6%  emerald,  7%  dark  chartreuse,  and  2.3%  

chartreuse  (Figure  1).    

 

  Twenty-‐eight  percent  of  the  panelists  found  the  light  yellow  beverage  was  

the  sourest,  25.6%  dark  chartreuse,  16.3%  dark  yellow,  14%  chartreuse,  and  

11.6%  emerald  (Figure  2).  

37.2%  

30.2%  

2.3%  7.0%  

18.6%  

Fg.  1  -‐  Sweetest  Beverage  

Light  Yellow  

Dark  Yellow  

Chartreuse  

Dark  Chartreuse  

Emerald  

  13  

 

  Seventy-‐seven  percent  of  the  panelists  recorded  the  emerald  beverage  as  

most  artificial  looking,  11.6%  dark  yellow,  and  2.3%  each  as    chartreuse,  dark  

chartreuse,  and  light  yellow.  Eighty-‐eight  and  a  half  percent  of  the  panelists  

found  the  light  yellow  beverage  to  be  most  natural,  4.7%  found  emerald  as  such,  

and  2.3%  found  chartreuse  as  such.  Sixty-‐seven  and  a  half  percent  of  panelists  

had  a  preference  for  the  light  yellow  beverage,  11.6%  for  chartreuse,  7%  dark  

yellow,    and  4.7%  for  the  dark  chartreuse  and  emerald.  Sixty  and  a  half  percent  

of  the  panelists  found  most  dislike  in  the  emerald  beverage,  18.6%  with  the  dark  

yellow,  7%  with  the  dark  chartreuse  and  the  light  yellow,  and  2.3%  the  

chartreuse  (Figure  3).  

 

 

 

 

27.9%  

16.3%  14.0%  

25.6%  

11.6%  

Fg.  2  -‐Sourest  Beverage  

Light  Yellow  

Dark  Yellow  

Chartreuse  

Dark  Chartreuse  

Emerald  

  14  

Fg.  3-‐Most  Artificial,  Natural,  Preferred  and  Disliked  of  Beverages  

 

The  panelists  preferred  all  the  beverages  at  varying  temperatures.  In  regards  to  

the  light  yellow  beverage,  95.3%  favored  it  cold,  11.6%  tepid.  In  regards  to  the  

dark  yellow  beverage,  95.3%  favored  it  cold,  7%  tepid,  and  2.3%  hot.  In  regards  

to  the  chartreuse  and  dark  chartreuse  colored  beverage,  95.3%  favored  it  cold,  

and  2.3%  warm.  Lastly,  95.3%  of  the  panelists  favored  the  emerald  colored  

beverage  at  a  temperature  of  cold,  and  2.3%  hot  (Figure  4).    

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.3%

88.4%

67.4%

7.0%

11.6%

0.0%

7.0%

18.6%

2.3% 2.3%

11.6%

2.3%2.3%0.0%

4.7%7.0%

76.7%

4.7% 4.7%

60.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

most  artificial most  natural most  prefer most  dislike

Light  YellowDark  YellowChartreuseDark  ChartreuseEmerald

  15  

Fg.  4-‐Preferred  Temperature  of  Beverages  

 

When  asked  if  they  would  drink  the  beverages,  81.4%  of  the  panelists  would  

consume  the  light  yellow  beverage,  58.1%  the  chartreuse,  ,  46.5%  the  dark  

yellow,  37.2%  the  dark  chartreuse,  and  25.6%  the  emerald  beverage  (Figure  5).  

 

 

2.3%  

2.3%  2.3%   2.3%  

11.6%  

7.0%  

82%  

84%  

86%  

88%  

90%  

92%  

94%  

96%  

98%  

100%  

Light  Yellow  

Dark  Yellow  Chartreuse   Dark  Chartreuse  

Emerald  

tepid  

warm  

hot  

cold    

81.4%  

46.5%  58.1%  

37.2%  

25.6%  

Fg.  5  -‐  Drink  Beverage  =  "Yes"  

Light  Yellow  

Dark  Yellow  

Chartreuse  

Dark  Chartreuse  

Emerald  

  16  

Paired  Comparison  Test  

  One  hundred  percent  of  the  panelists  who  participated  in  the  paired  

comparison  test  identified  the  mixture  of  apple  juice  with  1%  citric  acid  to  be  

sourer  than  the  pure  apple  juice.    

Triangle  Test  

  Ninety-‐five  percent  of  panelists  who  participated  in  the  triangle  test  

identified  the  mixture  of  apple  juice  and  1%  citric  acid  as  being  different  from  

the  two  samples  of  pure  apple  juice.    

Ranking  Test  

  The  43  panelists  who  participated  were  required  to  put  the  samples  in  

order  of  sourness.  Ninety  percent  ranked  the  mixture  of  apple  juice  with  10%  

citric  acid  as  the  sourest  and  9.3%  ranked  the  mixture  of  apple  juice  with  5%  

citric  acid  as  such.  Ninety-‐five  percent  of  the  subjects  ranked  the  pure  apple  juice  

as  the  least  sour,  and  4.7%  ranked  the  mixture  of  apple  juice  with  1%  citric  acid  

as  such  (Table  1).  

 Table  1.  Ranking  Test:  Degree  of  Astringency  showing  %  of  panelists  for  extreme  values           %  of  Citric  Acid  in  Apple  Juice  

Degree  of  

Astringency  

0%  

495P2  

1%  

543K8  

2.5%  

695F8  

5%  

192L3  

10%  

555D7  

1:  MOST  SOUR   0%   0%   0%   9.3%   90.7%  

5:  LEAST  SOUR   95.3%   4.7%   0%   0%   0%  

 

  17  

  Panelists  were  also  asked  which  sample  they  preferred  the  most  and  the  

least.  Sixty-‐five  and  a  half  percent  preferred  the  pure  apple  juice  overall,  20.9%  

the  mixture  with  apple  juice  with  5%  citric  acid,  9.3%  the  mixture  of  apple  juice  

with  2.5%  citric  acid,  7%  the  mixture  of  apple  juice  with  1%  citric  acid,  and  2.3%  

the  mixture  of  apple  juice  with  10%  (Table  2).  

 Table  2.  Ranking  Test:  Degree  of  Preference  showing  %  of  panelists  for  extreme  values           %  of  Citric  Acid  in  Apple  Juice  

Degree  of  

Astringency  

0%  

495P2  

1%  

543K8  

2.5%  

695F8  

5%  

192L3  

10%  

555D7  

1:  MOST  

PREFERRED  

60.6%   7%   9.3%   20.9%   2.3%  

5:  LEAST  

PREFERRED  

2.3%   11.6%   2.3%   4.7%   79.1%  

 

Duo-‐Trio  Test  

  Ninety-‐seven  percent  of  the  panelists  chose  the  Safeway  Vanilla  Wafers  as  

the  sample  that  was  different  in  the  duo-‐trio  test.  They  had  various  reasons  for  

making  their  decisions  including:  26.2%  judged  them  as  stale  in  comparison  to  

the  other,  14.3%  judged  them  harder  in  texture  than  the  Nabisco  Nilla  Wafers  

and  having  different  taste,    11.9%  judged  them  as  less  crunchy,  and  varying  

other  reasons  (Figure  6).  

  18  

 

Scoring  Test  

  Forty-‐three  panelists  participated  in  the  scoring  test.  The  mixture  of  apple  

juice  with  5%  citric  acid  scored  1  with  58.1%  of  the  subjects,  and  2  with  41.9%.    

The  mixture  of  apple  juice  with  1%  citric  acid  scored  2  and  4  each  with  2.3%  of  

the  subjects,  5  with  11.6%,  6  with  62.8%,  and  7  with  20.9%  of  the  subjects.  

Descriptive  Tests  

  The  panelists  had  to  evaluate  the  taste  of  goldfish  crackers,  raisins,  

almonds,  and  marshmallows  on  the  characteristics  of  flavor,  texture,  aroma,  

consistency,  and  mouthfeel.    They  further  assessed  their  appearance  via  a  list  of  

descriptive  terms  (Appendix).  All  42  panelists  participated  in  the  goldfish  

cracker  descriptive  test.  Thirty-‐one  percent  of  the  participants  described  the  

cracker’s  appearance  as  golden-‐brown,  26%  as  dry,  9.5%  each  rough  and  

rounded,  7.1%  each  symmetrical  and  as  asymmetrical,  4.8%  grainy,  and  2.4%  

0.0%   5.0%  10.0%  15.0%  20.0%  25.0%  30.0%  

dryness  

less  vanilla  

stale  

texture  

ilaky  

hollow  

Sweet  

0.0%  11.9%  

7.1%  0.0%  

26.2%  14.3%  

9.5%  7.1%  

2.4%  14.3%  

2.4%  0.0%  

4.8%  

Fg.  6  -‐  97.6%  of  Participants  chose  Safeway  based  on  these  characterists  

  19  

each  puffy  and  dull.  One  hundred  percent  of  the  panelists  described  the  flavor  as  

salty.  Fifty  percent  of  the  participants  portrayed  the  texture  as  crunchy,  43%  as  

crisp,  and  2.4%  each  as  hard,  gritty,  and  mealy.  Seventy-‐eight  and  a  half  percent  

of  the  panelists  described  the  aroma  as  flavery,  9.5%  as  spicy,  7.1%  had  no  

aroma,  and  4.8%  as  sweet.  Sixty-‐six  and  a  half  percent  of  the  participants  

designated  the  consistency  as  cheesy,  23.8%  as  thin,  7.1%  as  thick,  and  2.4%  as  

viscous.    Sixty-‐eight  percent  of  the  panelists  found  the  mouthfeel  of  the  crackers  

as  crunchy,  18.2%  as  crisp,  and  13.6  gritty.    

  All  42  panelists  participated  in  the  raisin  descriptive  test.  Thirty-‐six  

percent  of  the  panelists  described  the  raisin’s  appearance  as  dry,  29%  as  rough,  

9.5%  each  asymmetrical  and  dark,  7.15  as  smooth,  4.8%  as  sticky,  and  2.4%  each  

dull  and  puffy.    Fifty-‐two  percent  of  the  participants  designated  the  flavor  as  

sweet,  33.3%  as  fruity,  9.5%  as  bitter,  and  2.4%  each  as  pasty  and  musky.  Forty  

percent  of  the  panelists  portrayed  the  texture  as  chewy,  24%  as  gummy,  14%  as  

gritty,  9.5%  as  lumpy,  4.8%  rubbery,  and  2.4%  each  as  rough,  firm,  and  crunchy.  

Seventy-‐four  percent  of  the  participants  reported  the  aroma  as  fruity,  21.4%  as  

sweet,  and  2.4%  each  of  flavory  and  sour.  Sixty-‐four  percent  of  the  participants  

described  the  consistency  as  gummy,  16.7%  as  rubbery,  11.9  as  thin,  and  7.1%  as  

thick.  Fifty-‐nine  percent  of  the  participants  found  the  mouthfeel  to  be  sticky,  

22.7%  as  gritty,  9.1%  as  slimy,  and  4.5%  each  as  crisp  and  smooth.  

  Only  41  panelists  participated  in  the  almond  descriptive  test.  Thirty-‐two  

percent  of  the  panelists  described  the  almond’s  appearance  as  golden-‐brown,  

  20  

17%  as  dry,  15%  as  light  brown,  9.8%  as  rough,  4.9%  each  as  rounded,  smooth,  

dull,  and  grainy,  and  2.4%  as  sticky,  symmetrical,  and  asymmetrical.  Eighty-‐eight  

percent  of  the  participants  designated  the  flavor  as  nutty,  9.8%  as  flat,  and  2.4%  

as  sweet.  Forty-‐one  percent  of  the  panelists  portrayed  the  texture  as  hard,  27%  

as  crunchy,  20%  as  firm,  and  2.4%  each  as  velvety,  crisp,  rough,  gritty,  and  

tender.  Forty-‐one  and  a  half  percent  of  the  participants  reported  the  aroma  as  

nonexistent,  26.8%  as  flavery,  17.1%  as  fruity,  7.3%  as  spicy,  4.9%  as  sweet,  and  

2.4%  as  sour.  Ninety  percent  of  the  participants  described  the  consistency  as  

thick,  4.9%  as  butter,  and  2.4%  each  as  thin,  and  rubbery.  Seventy-‐seven  percent  

of  the  participants  found  the  mouthfeel  to  be  crunchy,  13.6%  as  gritty,  and  4.5%  

each  as  crisp  and  smooth.  

  All  42  panelists  participated  in  the  marshmallow  descriptive  test.  Thirty-‐

eight  percent  of  the  panelists  described  the  marshmallow’s  appearance  as  puffy,  

33%  as  rounded,  9.5%  as  symmetrical,  7.1%  as  creamy,  4.8%  each  as  dull  and  

dry,  and  2.4%  as  fine.  Ninety-‐seven  and  a  half  percent  of  the  participants  

designated  the  flavor  as  sweet,  and  2.4%  as  pasty.  Thirty-‐six  percent  of  the  

panelists  portrayed  the  texture  as  springy,  19%  as  velvety,    12%  as  chewy,  9.5%  

gummy,  7.1%  each  as  gelatinized  and  moist,  4.8%  as  crisp,  and  2.4%  each  as  

rough  and  rubbery.  Ninety-‐seven  and  a  half  percent  of  the  participants  reported  

the  aroma  as  sweet,  and  2.4%  as  flowery.  Seventy-‐eight  and  a  half  percent  of  the  

participants  described  the  consistency  as  gummy,  11.9%  as  rubbery,  4.8%  as  

thick,  and  12.4%  each  as  butter  or  thin.  Sixty-‐three  and  a  half  of  the  participants  

  21  

found  the  mouthfeel  to  be  smooth,  27.3%  as  sticky,  and  4.5%  each  as  slimy  and  

gritty.  

Discussion  

Color  Association  /Beverage  Perception  

  Panelist  beverage  perception  and  opinion  is  shown  more  prominently  

with  each  additional  analysis  and  association.  Panelists  perceived  the  yellow-‐

colored  beverages  (light  yellow  and  dark  yellow)  as  being  sweeter  than  the  

others.  This  may  be  due  to  an  association  with  lemonade  and  a  sweet  correlation  

to  that  beverage  based  on  color  similarities.  For  sourness,  results  conflicted  with  

the  sweet  data,  finding  the  light  yellow  ranked  high  along  with  the  dark  

chartreuse  colored  beverage.  Participants  could  have  been  overwhelmed  with  

the  taste  overflow  of  sample,  which  could  account  for  the  contradictory  figures.    

A  smaller  sample  of  beverages  or  a  longer  time  in-‐between  sampling  could  

remedy  this  if  the  experiment  were  to  be  repeated.  Similar  conduction  of  a  

sensory  test  was  witnessed  in  the  Shankar  et  al.  2010  study  where  the  subjects  

were  aware  of  color  conditions  with  beverage  choice.  All  results  show  color  as  a  

strong  deciding  factor  in  beverage  classification.    

  The  emerald  beverage  was  found  to  be  most  artificial  and  most  disliked  

by  the  participants.  The  artificiality  could  be  based  on  the  unusual  brightness  of  

the  emerald  green  color  and  lack  of  an  association  with  another  beverage.  This  

could  lead  to  the  ranking  of  most  disliked  by  creating  a  negative  association  with  

that  color  disparity  in  the  panelist’s  memory.    

  22  

  The  light  yellow  beverage  was  found  to  be  most  natural  and  most  

preferred  by  the  participants.  The  recognition  of  the  light  yellow  color  most  

likely  was  due  to  an  association  with  a  similar  sport  drink  color  or  lemonade  

color.  This  may  have  lead  participants  to  a  ranking  of  most  preferred  due  to  a  

feeling  of  safeness  with  the  color  from  a  basis  of  memory  association.    

   For  temperature,  all  panelists  preferred  the  beverages  cold  overall.  Some  

participants  included  tepid  temperatures  fairly  high,  but  the  coldest  temperature  

remained  the  preference  throughout  the  color  variability.  Different  countries  

around  the  world  have  patterns  and  customs  that  guide  drink  temperature.  In  

the  United  States  (where  this  experiment  was  conducted),  beverage  temperature    

in  this  color  range,  is  dominated  by  a  cold  preference  and  is  perhaps  the  major  

reason  for  the  data  representation  here.  Future  research  in  this  area  could  

include  other  colors  that  are  known  to  vary  in  temperature,  including:  black,  

brown,  or  a  lighter  brown.    

Paired  Comparison  Test  

  All  the  panelists  identified  the  correct  sample  in  the  paired  comparison  

test.  Possibly  the  samples  were  easy  to  differentiate  by  that  timing  of  the  testing.  

In  order  to  account  for  this,  a  repeated  experiment  could  change  the  order  of  the  

testing  to  check  the  accuracy  of  this  data.  If  repeated  results  were  found  to  show  

100%  correct  identification,  verification  of  these  outcomes  would  be  established.    

Triangle  Test  

  23  

  All  participants  were  able  to  identify  the  different  samples  in  the  triangle  

test.  In  order  to  validate  the  accuracy  of  this  data,  repeated  experimentation  

could  be  used  where  the  order  of  testing  was  reversed  or  mixed.  This  would  

allow  measures  to  be  seen  from  multiple  testing  organizational  methods.  

Furthermore,  not  all  panelists  were  able  to  participate  due  to  dietary  

restrictions.  In  further  work,  questionnaires  should  be  able  to  separate  out  

candidates  that  cannot  participate  in  the  full  process.    

Scoring  Test  

  The  majority  of  the  participants  were  able  to  correctly  place  the  samples  

of  apple  juice  on  the  appropriate  locations  on  the  scale.  The  majority  of  the  

panelists  scored  the  pure  apple  juice  as  the  sweetest  and  the  sourest  as  the  

mixtures  of  apple  juice  and  a  10%  citric  acid  or  5%  citric  acid  component.  The  

ability  to  discern  the  two  highest  citric  acid  contenders  was  not  uniform  amongst  

the  participants,  most  likely  accounting  for  the  small  variability  in  the  scoring  

found  here.    This  could  be  due  to  individual  variances  found  from  panelist  tasting  

ability;  as  it  is  a  common  characteristic  to  have  differing  ranges  of  taste  

sensation  (Brown  2012).  These  results  could  also  possibly  be  due  to  an  

additional  issue  of  taste  fatigue,  since  there  were  5  samples  consecutively  tested.  

If  repeated,  the  experiment  should  lower  the  sample  number  to  deter  this  affect.    

Ranking  Test  

  All  panelists  participated  in  the  ranking  test,  with  the  majority  able  to  

correctly  identify  the  most  and  least  sour  apple  juice  mixtures.  The  greatest  

  24  

amount  of  panelists  preferred  the  pure  apple  juice  the  most  and  the  mixture  of  

apple  juice  and  10%  citric  acid  the  least.  As  previously  stated,  to  prevent  taste  

fatigue,  the  panelists  could  be  given  fewer  samples  to  compare  with  more  time  in  

between  to  deter  a  overflow  effect  of  the  samples.    

Duo-‐Trio  Test  

  Almost  all  of  the  panelists  participated  in  the  duo-‐trio  test,  and  those  who  

did  were  able  to  correctly  identify  that  the  Safeway  Vanilla  Wafers  were  different  

from  the  standard  sample.  Incorrect  identification  of  the  sample  could  have  been  

due  to  experiencing  taste  fatigue,  recorded  incorrect  results,  or  having  been  

given  a  defective  sample.  The  panelists  believed  that  the  wafers  were  different  

based  on  varying  reasons  mainly  due  to  personal  preference.  Further  tests  could  

thoroughly  follow  recording  procedures,  check  each  sample  before  given  to  

panelists,  and  possibly  lower  the  amount  of  descriptive  terms  in  order  to  prevent  

these  variances.    

Descriptive  Tests  

  The  majority  of  the  panelists  participated  in  the  goldfish  cracker  

descriptive  test.  If  this  study  were  to  be  conducted  again,  the  organizer  could  

question  participants  before  involvement  in  order  to  omit  those  who  cannot  

participate  in  all  aspects  of  the  experiment.  The  crackers’  appearance  was  found  

to  be  golden-‐brown,    rough,  rounded,  asymmetrical,  symmetrical,    grainy,  puffy,  

or  dull.  In  order  to  minimize  the  difference  seen  in  these  results,  the  organizers  

could  present  a  shorter  list  of  descriptive  terms,  which  would  assist  the  panelists  

  25  

in  honing  their  sensory  evaluation  skill.  In  addition,  there  are  normal  variances  

in  the  way  the  crackers  were  viewed,  possibly  from  one  angle  while  others  view  

from  a  different  angle.  If  this  examination  was  repeated  on  crackers,  a  uniform  

shaped  product  could  be  chosen  in  place  of  the  fish  shape.  Test  organizers  could  

also  check  for  regularity  of  size  and  shape  for  uniformity  of  each  cracker.  

Consistency,  mouthfeel  and  texture  recordings  also  found  similar  results  of  

varying  responses,  with  one  exception  of  the  taste  with  100%  reporting  them  as  

salty.    

  All    of  the  panelists  participated  in  the  raisin  and  almost  all  participated  in  

the  almond  descriptive  tests.  The  majority  found  the  raisins  to  by  sticky,  sweet,  

chewy,  and  fruity.  The  majority  also  found  the  almond  to  be  golden-‐brown,  

nutty,  hard,  brittle,  and  odorless.  In  the  future,  a  more  fragrant  nut  could  replace  

the  almond  so  there  is  something  to  report  by  panelists  for  odor.  As  previously  

stated,  performing  some  pre-‐selection  questions  can  remedy    the  lower  level  of  

participation  by  the  subject  panelists.  This  can  be  conducted  by  simply  omitting  

panelists  who  have  a  nut  allergy  or  diet  condition  that  keeps  them  from  

participating  in  all  the  testing  procedures.  

  As  with  the  other  tests,  not  all  panelists  participated  in  the  marshmallow  

descriptive  test.  Panelists  found  them  puffy,  rounded,  symmetrical,  creamy,  dull,  

dry,  and  or  fine.  Flavor  was  found  to  be  sweet,  or  pasty,  and  texture  as  springy,  

velvety,  chewy,  gummy,  gelatinized,  and  or  moist,  plus  others.  Varied  responses  

  26  

could  be  minimized  (as  stated  previously)  by  having  a  shorter  recommended  

word  list.    

  The  results  of  these  tests  all  show  that  panelists  were  able  to  evaluate  

food  samples  objectively  based  on  given  characteristics.  Any  sensory  

examinations  that  had  panelists  omitting  from  participating  was  due  to  specific  

diet  parameters  that  kept  them  from  consuming  those  specific  foods.  In  the  end,  

participants  were  able  to  meet  all  of  the  goals  set  forth  by  the  organizers  of  this  

data  collection.  Students  could  properly  re-‐administer  a  sensory  test  on  their  

own,  analyzing  color  associations  and  descriptive  properties  of  food  samples.  

Major  changes  in  a  repeat  experimental  process  should  include  the  before  

mentioned  suggestions  including:  shorter  recommended  descriptive  word  

tables,  pre-‐qualifying  panelist  questionnaires,  thorough  following  of  collection  

and  recording  procedures,  and  possibly  an  education  process  to  assist  panelists  

in  how  to  properly  test  for  sensory  evaluations.  This  lab  experiment  has  

introduced  the  students  involved  to  sensory  perception  testing  and  taught  all  

how  to  successfully  repeat  and  carry  out  such  tasks  in  future  research.    

                       

  27  

NUTR205     Demographic  Questionnaire    Name______________________________  Group  Number  _____    Section  Number_____      Please  answer  the  following  questions.    Note:  The  numbers  in  parentheses  are  used  for  recording  data  in  the  spreadsheet  only.    Your  instructor  will  explain  this  process  in  further  detail  when  necessary.    

1. Your  age,  in  years:  __________  

2. Your  gender  (circle):     Male(1)     Female(2)  

3. Your  major  (circle/fill-‐in):       F/N     Other____________________  

4. Student  Status  (circle):     Undergraduate  (1)   Graduate(2)  

5. Marital  Status  (circle):     never  married(1)   married  (2)   widowed(3)  

        divorced(4)  

6. Living  arrangements  (circle):   alone(1)   1  roommate(2)          

        2+roommates(3)  

7. Do  you  smoke  (circle):     Yes(1)     No(2)  

8. Do  you  have  any  food  allergies  (circle)?    If  yes  please  specify     Yes(1)    

                  No(2)  

________________________________________________________________________  

                       

  28  

NUTR  205   Sensory  Testing  Beverage  Questionnaire      Name______________________________  Group  Number  _____    Section  Number_____  Do  you  drink  Apple  Juice                                                        yes                                                                                                        No  For  each  of  the  parameters  (sweetness,  sourness,  naturalness,  artificiality,  preference  and  dislike)  give  the  beverage  with  the  most  a  rating  of  5.    Give  the  beverage  with  the  least  a  ranking  of  1.    Similarly  the  one  that  is  almost  as  sweet  as  the  sweetest  beverage  receives  a  ranking  of  4,  while  the  next  to  least  sweet  receives  a  ranking  of  2.    The  middle  sample  will  be  given  a  rating  of  3.        

5     4     3     2     1                                                                                                                                            For  stating  what  temperature  you  would  the  beverage  at,  state  whether  you  would  drink  the  beverage  hot,  warm,  tepid  or  cold.    Fill  in  the  cell  with  your  choice.      Complete  the  question  “Would  you  drink  it?”  as  either  yes  or  not  ONLY!    Please  do  not  use  words  like  sometimes  or  maybe.      

Beverage  Color  and  Associations  with  Other  parameters  Parameter   1  light  

yellow  2  dark  yellow  

3  chartreuse  

4  dark  chartreuse  

5  emerald  green  

Sweetness            

Sourness            

Artificiality            

Naturalness            

Prefer            

Dislike            

At  what  temp  would  you  drink  

it?  

         

Would  you  drink  it?  

         

                     

Most   Least  

  29  

DESCRIPTIVE  TERMS  To  use  with  Experiment  #3,  Letter  A,  Table  A-‐1  in  Lab  Book.  When  evaluating  the  foods  in  this  experiment,  select  one  of  the  words  from  this  list  for  the  appropriate  category.    Appearance               Texture              Symmetrical               Crisp  Asymmetrical               Velvety  Rounded               Rough  Dry                 Hard  Golden  brown               Firm  Light  brown  smooth             Thin  Rough                 Viscous  Puffy  dark               Springy  Creamy               Gritty  Dull                 Gummy  Fine                 Adhesive  Grainy                 Moist  Sticky                 Tender  Glossy                 Chewy                   Lumpy  Flavor                 Rubbery                   Crunchy  Sweet                 Gelatinized  Bitter                 Mealy  Sour                  Salty  Flat                 Mouthfeel  Rancid  Pasty                 Crisp                   Sticky          Flowery               Slimy  Fruity                 Gritty  Musky                 Slick  Nutty                 Crunchy                   Smooth  Aroma                   Consistency  Spicy    Flavery                 Butter  Fruity                 Cheezy  Sweet                 Viscous  Sour                 Thick                   Thin                   Rubbery                   Gummy              

   

  30  

NUTR205   Sensory  Evaluation      Name______________________________  Group  Number  _____  Section  Number_____    Duo-‐Trio  Test    Determine  which  cookie  sample  differs  from  the  standard  presented  first.    Standard  =  8175           Sample  =  6104        

       Sample  =  1108          

Which  sample  differs  from  the  standard?  __________  In  your  opinion  what  is  the  major  difference?  ____________________    Scoring  or  Rating  Test    The  reference  sample,  0110,  has  been  given  an  arbitrary  score  of  4.    Rate  the  sour  intensity  of  the  other  two  samples  relative  to  the  reference.    Sample  420M                                           Sample  S723  

   

More  sour  1  .________                  2.  ________                  3.________                                0110              4.________                    5.________                  6._________                          Less  sour      7.________  

                       

  31  

KEY  FOR  SENSORY    

EXPERIMENT 1 - ASSOCIATION OF COLOR IN BEVERAGES WITH SOURNESS, SWEETNESS, AND PREFERENCE Light Yellow - Mountain Dairy Lemonade Dark Yellow –Xtremo Citrico Vibrante Gatorade Chartreuse – 350 mls. Lemon Lime Gatorade plus 150 mls. Green Squall Powerade Dark Chartreuse – Green Squall Powerade Emerald Green– Watermelon Gatorade EXPERIMENT B - PAIRED COMPARISON TEST 635T1 = 0% 573T2 = 1% EXPERIMENT C - TRIANGLE TEST 777Cl = 0% 542E2 = 0% 112H9 =1% EXPERIMENT D - RANKING 495P2 = 0% 543K8 = 1% 695F8 = 2.5% 192L3 = 5% 555D7 =10% EXPERIMENT 2 - DUO-TRIO 8175 (Standard) = Nabisco Nilla Wafers 6104 = Safeway Vanilla Wafers 1108 = Nabisco Nilla Wafers EXPERIMENT 3 - SCORING 420M = 1% 0110 = 2.5% S723 = 5%  

               

  32  

References  Brown  AC.  2010.  Food  evaluation.  In:  Food  preparation  –  NUTR  205:  Custom  edition     for  San  Diego  State,  4th  ed.  United  States:  Cengage  Learning.  P23-‐8.      Ioannides,  Y.  ,  Seers,  J.  ,  Defernez,  M.  ,  Raithatha,  C.  ,  Howarth,  M.  ,  et  al.  (2009).     Electromyography  of  the  masticatory  muscles  can  detect  variation  in  the     mechanical  and  sensory  properties  of  apples.  Food  Quality  and  Preference,     20(3),  203-‐215.    Marzec,  A.  ,  Kowalska,  H.  ,  &  Zadrozna,  M.  (2010).  Analysis  of  instrumental  and     sensory  texture  attributes  of  microwave-‐convective  dried  apples.  Journal  of     Texture  Studies,  41(4),  417-‐439.    McClure,  S.  ,  &  Lawless,  H.  (2010).  Comparison  of  the  triangle  and  a  self-‐defined  two     alternative  forced  choice  test.  Food  Quality  and  Preference,  21(5),  547-‐552.    Ross,  C.  ,  Weller,  K.  ,  Blue,  R.  ,  &  Reganold,  J.  (2009).  Difference  testing  of  merlot     produced  from  biodynamically  and  organically  grown  wine  grapes.  Journal  of     Wine  Research,  20(2),  85-‐94.    Sandra,  S.  ,  Stanford,  M.  ,  McDaniel,  M.  ,  &  Goddik,  L.  (2004).  Method  development  for     assessing  the  complete  process  of  crumbling  cheese  using  hand  evaluation.     Journal  of  Food  Science,  69(4),  SNQ127.    Shankar,  M.  ,  Simons,  C.  ,  Shiv,  B.  ,  McClure,  S.  ,  Levitan,  C.  ,  et  al.  (2010).  An     expectations-‐based  approach  to  explaining  the  cross-‐modal  influence  of  color     on  orthonasal  olfactory  identification:  The  influence  of  the  degree  of     discrepancy.  Attention,  Perception  &  Psychophysics,  72(7),  1981-‐1993.    Stillman,  J.  (1993).  Color  influences  flavor  identification  in  fruit-‐flavored  beverages.     Journal  of  Food  Science,  58(4),  810-‐812.    Young  ND,  Sanders  TH,  Drake  MA,  Osborne  J,  Civille  GV.  2005.  Descriptive  analysis     and  US  consumer  acceptability  of  peanuts  from  different  origins.  Food  Qual     Prefer  16:37-‐43.