Protein bars are one product that meet consumer demands for a low-carbohydrate, high-protein food. With such a large market for protein bars, producers need to find the correct texture and sweetness levels to satisfy consumers while still delivering a high-protein, low-carbohydrate bar. In the bar industry, bar hardening is a major concern, and currently the effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on bar hardening is unknown. Due to the negative implications of bar hardening, it is important to investigate the sweetener-protein relationship with bar hardening. The objective of this study was to characterize the effects of sweetener and protein source on flavor, texture, and shelf life of high-protein, low-carbohydrate bars. The iso-sweet concentration of sweeteners (sucralose, sucrose, monk fruit, stevia, and fructose) in pea protein (PP), milk protein (MP) and whey protein isolate (WPI) bars were established using magnitude estimation scaling and 2-alternative forcedchoice testing. Descriptive analysis and temporal checkall-that-apply methods were then applied to determine flavor and temporal differences between the protein bars. Finally, an accelerated shelf life study was completed to understand how sweetener and protein types affect the shelf life of protein bars. The 15 protein bars formulated at iso-sweet concentration were all stored at 35°C and 55% humidity for 35 d, and measurements were taken every 7 d, beginning at d 1 (d 1, 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35). Bars made with MP required significantly less sweetener, compared with PP and WPI, to reach equal sweetness. Bars sweetened with stevia or monk fruit had distinct bitter and metallic tastes, and sucralose had a low metallic taste. Bars made with WPI were the most cohesive, and PP and WPI bars were more bitter and metallic compared with MP bars. Bars made with WPI and fructose were initially the hardest, but after d 14 they scored at parity with PP sucrose.There were no significant differences among bars in terms of hardness by d 21. Bars made with WPI were consistently denser at all time points than bars made with PP or MP. Bars made with PP were the driest and least cohesive and had the fastest rate of breakdown in the study. Non-nutritive sweeteners did not have a negative effect on bar hardness in low-carbohydrate, high-protein bars. Findings from this study can be applied to commercially produced protein bars for naturally sweetened bars with different protein types without negative effects on protein bar texture.

We propose a new temporal sensory method called temporal ranking (TR) in which assessors indicate and rank the three most noticeable sensations at every time point. The TR method was compared to temporal‐check‐all‐that‐apply (TCATA) in two trained‐panel studies, one study involving six ready‐to‐mix (RTM) protein beverages and one study involving seven ready‐to‐drink (RTD) protein beverages. In each study, the same attributes were used in both methods; six attributes were evaluated for RTMs and 10 attributes for RTDs. A trained sensory panel (n = 10) completed TCATA and temporal ranking (TR) training exercises, then evaluated each beverage in triplicate using each method in a replicated balanced randomized design. To evaluate each temporal method (TR and TCATA), each test beverage was compared with the sucrose‐ or sucralose‐sweetened control beverage within each study (RTM and RTD). Although results from TR and TCATA often coincided, TR better differentiated the protein beverage formulations on more sensory attributes and detected differences between the test and control beverages (p < .05) when TCATA did not. Overall, TR was found to be more sensitive in detecting sensory differences than TCATA, and thus could improve the guidance for the development and formulation of foods. Practical applications This study proposes a new temporal method, temporal ranking, which has assessors continuously rank the three most noticeable attributes when evaluating a beverage. Temporal ranking data can give improved guidance, especially for products that might have side flavors, such as natural nonnutritive sweeteners or alternative protein sources. Further application of findings and methodologies from this study may help guide development and formulation of foods.

Soy sauce may be consumed as an ingredient, a marinade, or as a compliment to sushi. The objective of this study was to determine the role of carrier in the context of consumer liking and differentiation of soy sauces. A trained descriptive analysis panel (n = 8) documented aromatics, basic tastes, and mouthfeel factors of 27 different soy sauces. Ten representative soy sauces were selected for consumer evaluation. Soy sauces were presented on meatballs, cucumber sushi rolls, and neat in three separate sessions. Within each session, consumers (n = 121) reported overall liking for each soy sauce. Overall liking scores were evaluated by two-way analysis of variance (soy sauce  context) and landscape segmentation analysis (LSA) was applied to visualize consumer ideal points for each context. Soy sauce liking scores were highest for meatballs and lowest for neat evaluation (p < .05). Context and soy sauce impacted liking (p < .05), but there was no interaction (p > .05), and liking scores were generally consistent, regardless of context. Drivers of liking determined via LSA differed slightly among the various contexts tested, and there was evidence that consumer ideals within a product space shifted in different contexts. Practical ApplicationsSelection of a carrier for a consumer taste test can be time-consuming and expensive.This study demonstrates that consumers can evaluate soy sauces neat and provide the same directional information as if the consumers evaluated the soy sauces with a carrier. | INTRODUCTIONContext is defined as the condition in which perception of a product is impacted by the presence of other factors within the evaluation session (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). These factors can include other products used in the test, questions asked on the ballot, or the conditions in which the products are served. Previous work has evaluated how perception is affected by age of the person, sample concentration or intensity, order bias, product evaluation with or without carriers, environmental context, halo/horns effects, and testing location (CLT vs. HUT) (

Eating is a dynamic experience, and temporal sensory methods have been proposed to document how products change over the course of consumption or use (nonfood). A search of online databases yielded approximately 170 sources related to temporal evaluation of food products that were compiled and reviewed. This review summarizes the evolution of temporal methodologies (past), offers guidance in selecting appropriate methods (present), and provides insights into the future of temporal methodologies in the sensory space. Temporal methods have evolved to document a variety of characteristics in food products including how the intensity of a specific attribute changes over time (Time-Intensity), which specific attribute is dominant at each time during evaluation (Temporal Dominance of Sensations), which attributes are present at each time point during evaluation (Temporal Check-All-That-Apply), and many others (Temporal Order of Sensations, Attack-Evolution-Finish, and Temporal Ranking). In addition to documenting the evolution of temporal methods, this review considers the selection of an appropriate temporal method based on the objective and scope of research. When choosing a temporal method, researchers should also consider the selection of panelists to perform the temporal evaluation. Future temporal research should focus on validation of new temporal methods and explore how methods can be implemented and improved to add to the usefulness of temporal techniques for researchers. K E Y W O R D Sreview, temporal check-all-that-apply, temporal dominance of sensations, temporal methods, time-intensity