Journal Pre-proof

Sensory tools for the development of gluten-free bakery foods

H.L. de Kock, N.N. Magano

PII: S0733-5210(19)30650-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2020.102990
Reference: YJCRS 102990

To appear in: Journal of Cereal Science

Received Date: 29 December 2019

Revised Date: 24 April 2020
Accepted Date: 28 April 2020

Please cite this article as: de Kock, H.L., Magano, N.N., Sensory tools for the development of gluten-free
bakery foods, Journal of Cereal Science (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2020.102990.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 Sensory tools for the development of gluten-free bakery foods

Step 6:
Take action
Step 5:
Analyse the
Step 4: sensory test
Run the
Step 3: results
sensory
Select the evaluation
Step 2: test
Define the test
Step 1: conditions
test objective • The method/s
What is the • The samples
question to • The panel
answer? • The test
environment
 1 Sensory tools for the development of gluten-free bakery foods
2

3 H L de Kock* & N N Magano

4 Department of Consumer and Food Sciences, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield 0028,
5 South Africa

6 *Corresponding author: [email protected]

7 Tel: +27 (12) 420 3238

8 Abstract
9 The appearance, taste, aroma and texture of food products, including gluten-free bakery products, is
10 very important predictors for whether or not such products would be acceptable for consumers.
11 Food companies that manufacture and supply gluten-free food and beverage products need to
12 utilise a variety of sensory tools for decision making during product development, evaluation of
13 ingredients, processes and products. The six steps to Sensory Evaluation process is a simple to use,
14 stepwise approach to select the right tools to answer questions. Different sensory evaluation tools
15 are used to address questions of the three different types (1) Are two or more products the same or
16 different? (2) What is the nature and size of differences among products? and (3) What are
17 consumers' opinions about a product/s? It is the intention that the discussion in this review would
18 stimulate ideas for application of more advanced sensory tools to further understanding to enhance
19 development of gluten-free foods and ingredients. Some suggestions for future sensory studies on
20 gluten-free bakery products are presented. These include more research on the acceptance and
21 perception of the sensory properties of gluten-free product options by both coeliac and non-coeliac
22 consumers at different life stages. Evaluation of the sensory properties of gluten-free products in
23 combination with other products, accompaniments and within meals. Also, sensory profiling of the
24 unique properties of naturally gluten-free bakery products, as well as studies to optimize acceptance
25 of these in wider consumer markets. The application of the tools in a systematic manner based on
26 the six steps to sensory testing process presented here will assist researchers to obtain powerful
27 results to answer research questions.

28 Keywords: sensory evaluation, descriptive, discrimination, consumers

29 1. Introduction
30 When consumers consider the suitability of bakery products such as bread, cakes, biscuits and
31 cookies for purchase or consumption, the appearance, aroma, and texture of available options are
32 critical determinants of selection. During product consumption these and additional flavour and
33 sound properties contribute directly to the ultimate enjoyment of the products and future choices.
34 Research tools that support the understanding of the basic sensory perceptions and the
35 consequences thereof form the basis of sensory and consumer science. The science has progressed
36 with time and continues to evolve; thus, product developers and cereals scientists should
37 incorporate the most progressive tools available that are suited to the purpose and goals of the
38 research.

39 The development of gluten-free bakery products is partly driven by consumers who need or want to
40 consume foods that do not contain gluten. Health reasons for avoiding gluten, include coeliac
41 disease, and gluten sensitivity (noncoeliac gluten intolerance) (Gaesser and Angadi, 2012). Despite a
42 lack of evidence suggesting that following a gluten-free diet has any significant benefits for the
43 general population, many reports (e.g. Gaesser and Angadi, 2012; Prada et al., 2019) show that
44 consumers often perceive gluten-free foods as healthier than their gluten-containing (often wheat
45 based) counterparts. This perception is to some extent fueled by celebrity endorsements of the
46 gluten-free lifestyle and social media food trend influences.

47 Another compelling reason for the development of gluten-free foods is the need to utilise more
48 locally grown and indigenous climate-smart crops. This is particularly in areas where agro-climatic
49 conditions do not favour wheat production, such as in many African (Nkhabutlane et al., 2019;
50 Olojede et al., 2020) and Latin American (Ballesteros López et al., 2004; Jensen et al., 2015)
51 countries. The development of sensory acceptable bakery products from locally available cereal,
52 pseudo-cereal, tuber and root, nut as well as legume flours could potentially lessen the reliance on
53 expensive wheat imports.

54 A growing industry around the supply of ingredients and additives for the gluten-free market has
55 developed. Gluten-free bakery products are often compared to traditional wheat-based products,
56 the latter considered as the gold standards. Compared to wheat-derived products, commercial
57 gluten-free bakery products often have inferior quality with respect to flavour and texture and is
58 typically more expensive (Lamacchia et al., 2014). The products are often described as having a flat
59 appearance, being dry and firm, with a crumbly texture (O’Shea et al., 2014; Torbica et al., 2010) and
60 with poor flavour (Hager et al., 2012). Among coeliac consumers the sensory characteristics of gluten
61 free-bread have been reported as the most important variables considered for purchase decision
62 (Campo et al., 2016).

63 The appearance, taste, aroma and texture of a food product are very important predictors for
64 whether or not the product would be acceptable for consumers. Food companies that manufacture
65 and supply gluten-free food and beverage products need to utilise sensory tools for decision making
66 during product development, evaluation of ingredients, processes and products. However, it is
67 common for managers, marketing personnel, food scientists even academics and researchers, who
68 otherwise would use careful, analytical experimentation to quantify chemical, physical, psychological
69 and economical properties of food products to resort to unscientific methods when faced with
70 human sensory measurements of the same material. Drake, (2007) laments that sensory testing is
71 often considered a late addition to an experiment without proper design and planning which could
72 lead to unreliable and poor results.

73 The purpose here is to provide a review of the sensory tools available for studying the sensory
74 properties of gluten-free bakery products. Sensory evaluation is a multidisciplinary challenge that
75 requires an understanding of food science, statistics, chemistry, nutrition, physiology, and
76 psychology (Heiniö, 2014). The broader discipline of Sensory Science is an area where major
77 scientific development has happened in the last few decades (Prescott et al., 2014). Similar to other
78 fields of science, tools and techniques used in sensory science has continued to advance; and
79 researchers and practitioners should keep abreast of the latest tools available for the purpose and
80 goals (Drake, 2007). A number of tools exist for the generation of data relating to different attributes
81 of new or existing food products. The challenge is to apply the right tool for the answer that is
82 needed. Choosing the right method(s) can be a difficult task in which the strengths and weaknesses
83 of each method, budget limitations, and other resource aspects must be contemplated. The six steps
84 to Sensory Evaluation process is a simple to use, stepwise approach to select the right tools to
85 answer questions. It can be used as a baseline for sensory research of any product type, including
86 gluten-free food. Error! Reference source not found. provides a case study example of the process.
87 The different steps will now be discussed in more detail.
88
Table 1: Six steps to sensory evaluation – an example of the process

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6

What is the question? Test objective/s Select the test conditions Run the test Analyse the test results Take action

Background: 1. To determine whether or not adding Test method: Triangle test Date: 17/10/2019 11 employees identified The 4 % guar gum added to the
The shelf life of a gluten-free bread 4% guar gum has an effect on the Test panel: Time: 10:30 AM the odd sample correctly. gluten-free bread formulation
formulation is short (less than 3 days). With sensory properties of day 0 gluten-free Company employees (n=18) Responsible sensory analyst: L does not change the sensory
such a short shelf life the logistics of bread. familiar with the test method and Mongena, Assistant: P Ferreira No significant difference properties of the bread?
distribution to retailers is complex and previously screened for sensory between Control gluten-
expensive leading to high levels of product If no, continue with storage trial 2 acuity, discriminators of small Data collection online via free bread Day 0 and Continue with a storage trial.
waste, consumer complaints and product If yes, find a new solution (back to step product differences smartphones or tablets gluten-free bread with
returns. 1) Test samples: 4% guar gum (p = 0.01)
Control gluten-free bread Day 0
Potential solution: Test criteria: p < 0.05, gluten-free bread with 4 % guar
To include guar gum at 4% to improve gum Day 0
stability. Test environment:
Staff training room
Question/s
1. Will the formulation change have an 2. To determine whether adding 4% guar Test method: Date: 20/10/2019 55 of 82 consumers The 4 % guar gum added to the
effect on the sensory properties of the gum has a positive effect* on the Paired preference test preferred the gluten-free gluten-free bread formulation
bread? sensory properties of gluten-free bread Test panel: Time: Four time slots during the bread with 4 % guar gum has a positive effect on the shelf
and if not .. stored for 3 days. Regular consumers of the product day to accommodate schedules Day 3. life of the bread?
2. Will the change in the formulation (n=90). Consume the product at of different consumers (8:00,
increase the shelf life? If yes, implement the change least twice a week. 12:00, 16:00 and 18:00) Significant preference for Change the formulation of the
If no, find a new solution (back to step Test samples: the gluten-free bread gluten-free bread to include the
1) Control gluten-free bread Day 3 Responsible sensory analyst: L with 4 % guar gum Day 3 4% guar gum.
gluten-free bread with 4 % guar Mongena, Assistant: P Ferreira (p = 0.002).
Test criteria: p < 0.05, gum Day 3 Next task: Determine the shelf
Test environment: Data collection via paper-based life of the new formulation
Central location area with questionnaire gluten-free bread.
convenient access for target
consumers recruited from the The incentive for participants:
company database. A product gift voucher
Type of question? * Consider resources: Anything to note? Anything to note? Anything to note?

A. “Are the products the Q1 A positive effect is defined as a Time: All participants provided The change in the formulation of
same/different” preference for the product by regular informed consent the bread adds 4 % to the
B. What are the nature and size of consumers of the product. Budget production cost of the bread.
the differences between the
Labour: The added cost to be recovered
products?”
by:
C. What are consumers’ opinions
Q2 Facilities
about the products?”
• More sales
• Less waste
• Fewer product returns
 1 2. The Six Steps to Sensory Evaluation
2 2.1. Step 1: What is the question to answer?
3 Before actually conducting a sensory test, the research question needs to be carefully defined and
4 the experiment properly planned. It is very important to understand the exact nature of the problem
5 or question that needs to be studied. Start with the basic questions:

6 • WHAT question/s need to be answered and WHY?

7 • WHAT is the nature of the product/s related to the question?
8 • In the context of the question, WHO consumes the product/s and HOW is it consumed?
9 Answering these questions will help the researcher to decide on the practical aspects of conducting
10 the sensory study (See example Table 1). Questions related to Sensory Evaluation can be grouped
11 into three categories. Different sensory evaluation tools are used to address questions of the three
12 different types.

13 (1) Are two or more products the same or different?

14 For example, to investigate ways to increase the shelf life of traditional South American gluten-free
15 cheese bread Zapata et al., (2019) had to determine whether cheese bread with guar gum added
16 plus incorporating either a dough freezing or chilling process made a difference to the sensory
17 properties of the product.

18 (2) What is the nature and size of differences among products?

19 For example Ari Akin et al., (2019) had to identify and describe the sensory profiles of chemically
20 leavened gluten-free sorghum bread as influenced by different starch/hydrocolloid combinations.

21 (3) What are consumers' opinions about a product/s?

22 An example of a question related to the opinion of consumers is when Campo et al., (2016)
23 compared four gluten-free bread formulations with the addition of sourdough in combination with
24 teff flour and wanted to identify the attributes that drive preference for coeliac consumers.

25 2.2. Step 2: Define the test objective

26 Based on the evidence available, the anticipated answer to the question formulated in step 1
27 becomes the hypothesis to test in the study. The hypothesis informs the statement of the test
28 objective, the most appropriate test protocol and the planning of the logistics for the test.

29 2.3. Step 3: Select the test conditions

30 During the third step, four important decisions are made, deciding on the specific product samples
31 that need to be evaluated, the test method to use, the criteria and/or characteristics of the human
32 subjects/panel that is needed to evaluate the product samples and the test environment that is most
33 suitable and practical for executing the task. The four aspects are closely interrelated and the one
34 depends on the other.

35 2.3.1. The test method/s to use

36 Traditionally, two clearly defined areas of sensory evaluation are recognised: analytical tests to
37 objectively evaluate the sensory characteristics of products, and affective tests used to measure
38 product acceptance/preference with consumers (Ares and Varela, 2017). Analytical sensory methods
39 in the difference, also called discrimination, tests category are used to determine, with statistical
40 relevance, whether or not consumers will notice a difference between two or more products.
41 Analytical sensory tests that are also used to describe and quantify the nature of differences among
42 product options are called descriptive or sensory profiling tests. In contrast, affective sensory
43 methods are employed to quantify and/or qualify the affective opinions of consumers towards
44 product options.

45 Difference test methods

46 Let us consider the case where the addition of an ingredient has the potential to add a substantial
47 quality or shelf life benefit to a product yet will also add extra cost (Error! Reference source not
48 found.). The decision whether or not to add the ingredient depends on its effect, if any, on the
49 sensory properties of the product and evidence that the addition definitely contributes the benefit.
50 Results from a difference test will enable the researchers to make the decision whether or not to
51 add the ingredient with confidence and minimal risk.

52 Error! Reference source not found. shows examples of test methods in this category. The tests are
53 not difficult to set up nor to use. Each of the difference/similarity sensory methods has advantages
54 and disadvantages, including the sensitivity of the method, which determines the number of judges
55 necessary. The number of panelists required varies depending on the goal and the type of panelists
56 considered (screened for discrimination ability or not). Generally, 25 to 50 panelists are
57 recommended (Drake, 2007). The researcher may want to establish whether products are different
58 but oftentimes also whether products are similar. While the same test methods may be applied, the
59 analysis and application of difference and similarity test statistics are different. For a recent and
60 comprehensive review of methods, see Rogers, (2017). Detailed instructions on the practical setup
61 of the methods can be found in the practical and detailed manuals of the ASTM (www astm.org).

62 Table 2 Examples of difference or discrimination test methods

Test name Basic explanation of presentation of samples and task required

Difference Paired A set of two samples (A and B) is presented simultaneously to each
comparison test, panellist. The set orders AA, BB, AB, BA should be presented. A
panellist is asked to indicate whether the samples are the same or
different.
Directional paired A set of two samples (A and B) is presented simultaneously to each
comparison test or panellist. The set orders AB or BA should be presented. A panellist is
2-Alternative force choice asked to indicate which one of the two samples is present in a
(2-AFC) test lower/higher magnitude e.g. sweeter.
A not A test A reference sample A is presented first. Blind-coded samples are
presented and the panellists have to decide if a sample is A or Not
A.
Degree of difference test Usually, a reference or control sample is presented first. Thereafter
blind-coded samples are presented and the panelists indicate the
degree of difference from the reference using a scale ranging from
‘same as reference’ to ‘very different from reference’.
Triangle test, A set of three samples is presented simultaneously to each
3-Alternative force choice* panellist; two samples are the same and one is odd or different.
(3-AFC) test The panellists are asked to identify the odd sample.
*For the 3-AFC version of this test, two samples are the same and
one is different in a specified attribute e.g. sweetness
Duo-trio test A sample marked reference R and two other blind-coded samples
are presented. Panellists are asked to identify which one of the two
blind coded samples are the most similar to the R sample.
Tetrad test The objective is to determine if two samples (e.g. A and B) are the
same or different. Four coded samples are presented
 simultaneously, two A samples and two B samples. The panelists
have to make two pairs of the two most similar samples.
Attribute ranking test Coded samples (more than two) are presented simultaneously. The
panellist has to put the samples in a descending or ascending order
based on a single attribute, e.g. hardness.
63

64 Sensory test methods to describe or characterise products

65 Traditionally sensory test methods to describe the nature of sensory differences were limited to
66 evaluation by specifically screened and trained panelists. Such tests involved small groups of 8-12
67 judges. Figure 1 provides a summary of methods that have been developed over the years for
68 profiling the sensory properties of food products. These range from the classic Flavor Profile and
69 Texture Profile methods (Muñoz and Keane, 2017) developed in the 1950s to, Check-all-that-apply
70 (CATA) and its different variations, Temporal Dominance of Sensations (TDS) and many others.
71 Essentially the basic approach of most of the methods are 1) to select panelists, 2) to develop and/or
72 select appropriate terms for description of sample differences (lexicon), 3) concept formation by
73 training and/or discussion or by a free choice process, 4) confirmation of panel functioning, and 5)
74 evaluation of products.

75 The development of rapid product profiling techniques, stimulated by the need for more speed,
76 flexibility and, less time spent on panel training, is a feature of modern descriptive sensory
77 evaluation. In fact, the need for problem-solving methods that use shortcuts to produce good-
78 enough solutions given a limited time frame or deadline (heuristics) is a priority of sensory and
79 consumer scientists (Jaeger et al., 2017). In the last couple of decades, various new methods for
80 sensory characterisation using also regular consumers as panellists for describing products have
81 been recognized (Varela and Ares, 2012). The reader is referred to the Sensory Wiki pages of the
82 Society for Sensory Professionals (sensorysociety.org) for short descriptions of many of the methods
83 indicated. Several reviews of the techniques and methodologies regularly used to describe food
84 samples (Delahunty, C.M.; Drake, 2004; Lawless and Heymann, 2010), including bread (Callejo, 2011)
85 have been published. Active debates on the pros and cons of the various methods and approaches
86 are ongoing (Ares and Varela, 2017; Muñoz and Keane, 2017).

87 The development of a standardised method for the descriptive analysis of a product category and a
88 descriptive lexicon or descriptor list with suitable definitions is a vital part of classic sensory profiling
89 methodology. Sensory lexicons or words to describe different sensory properties are effective
90 communication tools and useful for product development, quality control, product improvement, for
91 monitoring shelf-life changes, and for evaluating effects of ingredients and manufacturing processes
92 (Suwonsichon, 2019). Lexicons for bread (Callejo, 2011; Elía, 2011), gluten-free bread (Morais et al.,
93 2014; Pagliarini et al., 2010), chemically leavened sorghum bread (Ari Akin et al., 2019), sorghum
94 biscuits (Serrem et al., 2011), quinoa products (Wu et al., 2017), butter cakes from composite rice
95 flours (Chueamchaitrakun et al., 2011) and many others are available.

96 Another aspect highlighted in literature focuses on the selection of the most suitable panelists for
97 evaluating products. Considering that an important market for gluten-free products is coeliacs,
98 Laureati et al., (2012) and Pagliarini et al., (2010) used trained sensory panels consisting of coeliacs
99 to describe the sensory properties of the main commercially available gluten-free bread in Italy.
100 Results showed no difference between trained panels of coeliacs or non-coeliacs in the description
101 and perception of gluten-free bread (Laureati et al., 2012). In addition, the hedonic bread
102 preferences for coeliacs and non-coeliac consumers were based upon the same sensory attributes.
103 The need to monitor the dynamic oral breakdown and evolution of sensory properties during
104 consumption has given rise to a number of temporal descriptive sensory methods (Figure 1). For
105 example, Machado Alencar et al., (2015) evaluated the influence of sweeteners and pseudocereals
106 (amaranth and quinoa) on the sweetness and bitterness of gluten-free bread using the time-
107 intensity method. Given the often perceived dry and crumbly texture of gluten-free bread described
108 in literature (Pagliarini et al., 2010), it is anticipated that temporal methods may have particular
109 value to describe the human perception of gluten-free products. Changes in oral processing
110 parameters (e.g. time required to chew a product in anticipation of swallowing, or the ease of
111 development of the bolus) of different products can affect consumption, texture perception and
112 even feelings of satiety. Vvan Bommel et al., (2019) showed that evaluation of the developing
113 sensations provided important additional information about food perception. Products with the
114 same ingredients, same composition and same caloric content may vary in oral processing properties
115 due to textural changes. This property may be the driver of different expectations of satiety and
116 satiation of the breads.

117 Figure 1 Development of descriptive sensory evaluation methods

118 Test method tools to interact with consumers

119 Sensory analysis integrates many different sciences to better understand the sensory properties of
120 products and consumers’ responses to these properties. In commercial settings, research methods
121 to effectively measure consumer responses to new and reformulated products are essential.
122 However, liking is not the only aspect that can be measured. Sensory and consumer scientists are
123 nowadays tasked to collect a variety of information from consumers in order to obtain insight and a
124 more comprehensive understanding of experiences with products. The interaction of consumers
125 with products with a view of predicting food choice can be studied affectively, conceptually, or
126 perceptually (Vidal et al., 2019).
127
128 Affective or hedonic tests measures how much pleasure (or dislike) the product conveys to
129 consumers. The level of pleasure or satisfaction that a product delivers (or its sensory performance)
130 is measured by asking consumers to indicate their opinion on a scale. The classic 9-point hedonic
131 scale with word categories ranging from like extremely to dislike extremely is one of the most widely
132 used preference scales. However, many other scales may also be used. See (Cardello, 2017; Lim,
133 2011) for a review of assumptions, contexts and frames of reference for hedonic scaling. Examples of
134 other scales are the just-about-right scale, line scales with verbal anchors at the ends (‘‘I dislike it
135 very much’’/‘‘I like it very much’’) or category or interval scales supplemented with frowning/smiling
136 faces (Kihlberg et al., 2005).
137
138 Many researchers add value to liking measurements by obtaining additional information especially
139 focusing on conceptual views of consumers e.g. appropriateness of a product for certain uses (for
140 breakfast, school lunch packs, parties) (Giacalone and Jaeger, 2019), willingness to eat or purchase a
141 product, willingness to compromise on sensory quality in view of a health or other perceived or real
142 benefit, and evaluation of post-ingestive measures (e.g. feelings of hunger or satiation) (Andersen et
143 al., 2017) as well as demographical information (gender, age, family status, etc.). This additional
144 information can be particularly useful to gluten-free food liking studies.
145
146 Kihlberg et al., (2005) studied liking of bread as a function of perceived sensory properties in
147 combination with providing product information. Information was provided on the ingredients -
148 flour origin (from conventional versus organic farming system), health effect (cholesterol-reducing
149 effect), and addition of novel/less familiar ingredients to produce a neophobic reaction (with added
150 amaranth). Interestingly, the results for samples that scored high for liking were affected differently
151 by the information than were less well-liked samples. For example, when the information was given
152 that a product was made with organic flour, liking of the product was enhanced compared to when
153 the consumer was made to believe that the product was made with conventional flour. This finding
154 was related to the consumers’ ideas and attitudes about organic ingredients. This demonstrates that
155 perceptual information may have an effect on contextual or conceptual insights and vice versa.
156
157 Studies have suggested that gluten-free products have a “health halo” effect and that consumers
158 believe them to be healthier than products containing gluten (Christoph et al., 2018; Prada et al.,
159 2019). In contrast to research on other food claims e.g. organic and low fat, experimental research
160 examining the impact of gluten-free claims on food perception and specifically expected taste
161 (sensory properties) is still limited. In Portugal, Prada et al., (2019) examined how including a gluten-
162 free label on food packaging images impacted the evaluation (n= 202 consumers) of different
163 aspects (healthfulness, caloric content, expected taste and level of processing) of the products
164 depicted in the images. Gluten-free (vs. control) products were perceived by the participants as
165 healthier, as having fewer calories and as being less processed. Interestingly, the consumers did not
166 expect a difference in taste if the products were labeled gluten-free or not. In general, the
167 participants held positive beliefs toward gluten-free diets, but low self-reported knowledge about
168 gluten-free products was also identified. The effect of a gluten-free label claim on the taste
169 expectations of products was positive for some types of products e.g. rice crackers but negative for
170 others e.g. cooked rice. Consumer sensory studies to determine acceptance of gluten-free products
171 may need to consider the motivations for consuming gluten-free products.

172 It is also possible that the acceptance of naturally gluten-free products may be negatively influenced
173 by gluten-free label information due to taste expectations based on the gluten-free concept. In
174 another study, an interesting word association (WA) technique was used by Pontual et al., (2017) to
175 investigate the perception two groups of consumers (72 coeliac and 78 non-coeliac individuals; 150
176 in total) have on pizza dough (thick or thin) and the raw material used at the manufacturer (cassava
177 flour or rice flour). Using this technique it was found that gluten-free pizza should have a thin dough
178 and use cassava flour or rice flour as the raw material.

179
180 Product sensory experiences can evoke wide-ranging emotional responses. A plethora of test
181 methods focus on the measurement of emotional responses to foods (De Wijk et al., 2019; Deubler
182 et al., 2019; Kaneko et al., 2018; King et al., 2015; Lagast et al., 2017). Dalenberg et al., (2014)
183 showed that non-verbal food-evoked emotion scores improve food choice prediction over mere
184 liking scores. Both explicit and implicit methods are widely used to gather data about consumers’
185 perceptions. Explicit methods are either verbal or visual self-reported measurements where
186 participants report their feelings or emotions upon evaluating food products (Lagast et al., 2017).
187 Modern technology also allows for the measurement of more implicit consumer response measures
188 such as facial expressions and physiological measurements of the autonomic nervous system to
189 provide other types of information than explicitly verbalised responses (De Wijk et al., 2019).
190
191 While sensory evaluation most often focuses on the evaluation of the intrinsic quality attributes of
192 products, the reality is that the cost and even brand information of a product and the perceived
193 value for money have a significant effect on consumer opinion and behaviour. A variety of
194 structured questionnaires or instruments have been published to study consumers with a view to
195 gain insight in the factors that predict food choice. Such instruments are used to assess e.g. the
196 importance of health, pleasure, convenience, price, familiarity and ethicality motives in the selection
197 of items for consumption. Examples are the food choice questionnaire (Steptoe et al., 1995), food
198 neophobia scale (Pliner and Hobden, 1992), health and taste attitudes scales (Roininen et al., 1999)
199 and instruments to measure the impact of food environments on choice (see Ohri-Vachaspati and
200 Leviton, 2010 for a review of instruments on this topic).
201
202 2.3.2. The test samples
203 Practical considerations regarding the best way to prepare and present products for evaluation by a
204 judging panel are important aspects of sensory testing (Table ). For example, when serving bread to
205 a sensory panel, should they evaluate a product as presented for purchase on the shelf or as self-
206 prepared? How much and what part/s of e.g. bread (crust, crumb or both) should be evaluated or
207 not evaluated? Should a spread like butter or margarine, topping options or usual accompaniments
208 (e.g. tea) be made available or not? These are important to consider because it may have an
209 important effect on liking ratings during consumer evaluation. We compared consumer acceptability
210 of the crumb of commercial gluten-free and gluten-containing bread by cutting out circles of crumb
211 using a cookie cutter (Figure 2). No significant difference in the liking of the appearance of the bread
212 crumb samples was found, but it is fair to assume that the assessment would probably be very
213 different if the consumers were aware, during the evaluation, of the substantial difference in size
214 and crust properties of the bread loaves. This example emphasizes the importance of considering
215 the format of sample presentation but also hidden information when interpreting sensory results.

216 The use of materials for palate cleansing or refreshing before and in between the evaluation of
217 different samples also requires active thought. Test subjects usually drink or rinse with water for the
218 purpose. However, Chueamchaitrakun et al., (2011) used water and unsalted crackers when
219 evaluating butter cakes while Ari Akin et al., (2019) used raw cucumber in addition to water and
220 unsalted crackers when evaluating sorghum bread. Prior testing of rinsing agent is essential to
221 prevent carry over effects that may influence response variables.

222 Table 3 Practical aspects of product samples that need to be considered when planning sensory
223 evaluation tests

Nature of samples to be tested Sample set Evaluation of the samples

Are the samples to be tested How many different product Are there any practical limits
comparable e.g. equally fresh? types need to be evaluated? for the number of samples to
be tested?
Will the set of samples selected How many samples can be
be suitable for the test tested at any given time? What instructions (or
objective/s? information) are provided to
How much sample is available
evaluators?
Are the samples safe for for testing?
consumption? Palate cleansing materials
The sampling protocol
Are the samples to be tested Use of toppings and
What constitutes a typical
palatable? accompaniments
sample size?
What sort of preparation is Product serving, presentation,
Is repeated-use evaluation
required? and handling protocol
necessary?
How is the product type usually Serving utensils
consumed?

224

225 Figure 2 Illustration of the effect of a sampling method to focus the attention of the sensory panel on
226 the crumb properties of bread samples while ignoring the visual differences of the products

227
228 2.3.3. The test panel
229 Humans with their five senses (sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing) are unique and very useful for
230 judging food and materials. The aim of Sensory Evaluation is to characterise a food product and to
231 obtain an understanding of how the end-user experiences the sensory properties of the food before,
232 during and after consumption. The practical decision about who are the most suitable judges to
233 evaluate the products and where and how to find them is part of the task of the sensory scientist.
234 The use of specifically trained panellists but also untrained judges (consumers) to characterise and
235 profile the sensory properties of foods are well documented.

236 Despite some journals still publishing research papers where a small number of trained judges is
237 used to judge liking of food products, the opinion of such a small panel of trained judges or company
238 employees should not be relied on to report on the level of acceptability of products nor to predict
239 consumers’ acceptance and preference of products. The opinions of trained product evaluators are
240 usually not representative of regular consumers due to the analytical approach to evaluation
241 enforced by the attribute training process that they are exposed to. Consumers are heterogeneous
242 and vary considerably in their preferences for products and this is the main reason why consumer
243 evaluation requires relatively large numbers of consumers, typically 80 or more, selected to be
244 representative of a specifically defined consumer target market to evaluate the acceptance and/or
245 preference of product options. The number of consumers to recruit for a test is a matter of
246 statistical debate and practical aspects also play a role. For consumer panels, the criteria for
247 inclusion of participants is very important and requires adequate motivation. In a study by Mazzeo et
248 al., (2014), children between 6 and 12 years, diagnosed with coeliac disease, were recruited to
249 evaluate the visual and taste preferences for three commercial gluten-free products. The motivation
250 for choosing this group was due to research findings indicating that childhood and adolescence was
251 the most difficult stage to manage a strict gluten-free diet. Overall, the results of this study with a
252 small number of respondents (n=28) showed that the majority of the children liked the appearance
253 but were less satisfied with the taste of the gluten-free products evaluated.

254 Engaging humans as test instruments requires serious consideration of ethical requirements as part
255 of the interaction with the participants, the information supplied, data handling and reporting etc.
256 While most sensory tests do not represent risks beyond ‘the ordinary risks of daily life,’ the use of
257 coeliac consumers may require additional care and all aspects of the test (information supplied to
258 and collected from participants, nature of test and control samples, choice of mouth cleansers etc.)
259 should be carefully contemplated. The provision and signing of a consent form by all test
260 participants is a standard procedure. Volunteering participants need to be fully informed of the
261 potential risks of participation in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (Prescott et al., 2014).
262 As sensory tests with consumers often also apply tools from psychology, the risk for
263 emotional/psychological distress should not be ignored. While participation in sensory testing is
264 always voluntary, participants are often incentivized and/or thanked for the time spent using
265 monetary or other means (e.g. vouchers to spend at stores, participation in raffles). Care should be
266 exercised to ensure that the lure of the incentive does not become more important to participants
267 than the purpose of the task.

268 2.3.4. The test environment

269 The environment where sensory data is collected can have a huge effect on the responses obtained
270 (De Wijk et al., 2019) and should be considered with great care. External influences (e.g. sounds and
271 information, images, odours) create perceptions that can influence the perception of the
272 acceptability of the products tested. For analytical sensory evaluation, a sensory laboratory or
273 dedicated sensory area, including a sample preparation area is recommended so that conditions can
274 be controlled, and distractions are kept to a minimum. The physical setting, including individual
275 sensory booths or test stations, must be set up in such a manner that minimises panellists’ biases,
276 maximises evaluation sensitivity and eliminates external variables. The setting should allow
277 panellists to perform tasks free from distractions in a neutral and generally comfortable, quiet,
278 preferably temperature-controlled environment. The testing area should be free of crowding and
279 confusion. Easy access to the area (centrally located for panellists) saves time and frustration.
280 Panellists should not be able to observe activities in the sample preparation area. No odours from
281 food preparation or foreign odours should be present in the testing area, as this may influence the
282 judgments of panellists. Conditions must be conducive to concentration. Off-white or light grey
283 walls, lighting and fittings that do not influence the appearance of the products being judged are
284 essential.

285 For consumer testing, different types of test areas are used. If total control of external variables is
286 desired, a sensory laboratory is perfect to use. Nowadays, there is much support for conducting
287 consumer product testing in more natural consumption locations with the aim of better-predicting
288 consumers’ views of products as consumed in the real world. Kihlberg et al., (2005) conducted a
289 consumer test in a supermarket to allow for the effect of retail information on the liking of a
290 selection of bread types. The test area allowed to reach the broadest group of the target market,
291 food-buying consumers. The current theory emphasis is to include meaningful contextual (visual,
292 auditory and olfactory) test environment cues to inform consumer perceptions, liking and behaviors
293 when making product decisions (Bangcuyo et al., 2015). The motive for the choice of a test set up is
294 to improve the reliability of consumer data, thereby providing food and consumer product
295 companies significant savings on product development costs and failed launches.
296
297 The availability of specialised sensory software e.g. Compusense, Fizz, RedJade, Eye Question has
298 enabled researchers and companies to utilise fast and easy test setup capability, experimental
299 designs, test methods and other functional tools such as product blind coding, serving order design,
300 panel recruitment and monitoring functions and also statistical analyses. Data is collected via direct
301 online user/panellist interaction and analysed using the built-in software capacity.

302 2.4. Step 4: Run the sensory evaluation test

303 Detailed planning with dedicated staff (sensory analysts) and following good sensory practices
304 (European Co-operation for Accreditation, 2003; Lawless and Heymann, 2010) is the key to running a
305 successful sensory test. It is vital to make sure that all the necessary samples, containers and utensils
306 are available prior to set up the test. The testing area should be prepared and spotlessly clean. The
307 time and labour required to prepare samples especially for large panel tests, should not be
308 underestimated. Keeping samples warm/cold, hygienic and free from drying-out/softening, and
309 ensuring that the samples are presented in the correct orders to the right persons are pre-requisites
310 and requires attention and enough helpers. Panellists become demotivated and distracted when
311 they are kept waiting or sense confusion. A neat and professional-looking reception area where
312 panellists can register for a test and with a friendly person to welcome them, as well as a
313 comfortable waiting area, is indispensable. Practical considerations for scheduling test sessions
314 should consider the expected level of hunger of participants and the availability of judges.
315 Scheduling early morning, or after working hours sessions may be more convenient for those that
316 work.

317 2.5. Step 5: Analyse the sensory test results

318 Once the sensory and/or consumer data is collected analysis tools are applied to interpret the effect
319 of one variable on another, to search for noteworthy trends and to assess sets of data in order to
320 reach conclusions regarding its meaning. The diversity of data types from sensory and consumer
321 research allows for the application of a variety of powerful statistical analysis techniques. The
322 academic discipline of sensometrics has evolved due to the requirement of specific methodology
323 and statistical methods for sensory and consumer science (sensometric.org). The choice of an
324 analysis method to use depends on the question to answer, the type of data collected but also on
325 the statistical data handling skills of the researcher.

326 One of the most powerful functions that sensory evaluation provides is the identification of the
327 drivers of liking/disliking by relating descriptive characteristics of products to consumers' opinions
328 (Kihlberg et al., 2005). For example, partial least squares regression was used by (Heenan et al.,
329 2008) to investigate the relationships between consumers’ perceptions of bread freshness and
330 descriptive sensory data. Perception of bread freshness varied among consumers. Heenan et al.,
331 (2008) identified three consumer segments that were homogeneous in their perceptions of bread
332 freshness. Positive drivers of bread freshness for consumers in one of the cluster groupings were
333 ‘‘porous” appearance, and ‘‘floury” odour, while positive drivers for another cluster were ‘‘malty”
334 odour, and ‘‘sweet”, ‘‘buttery”, ‘‘oily” flavour. The third group of consumers were positively driven
335 by ‘‘porous” appearance, ‘‘floury”, ‘‘toasted” odour and ‘‘sweet” aftertaste. Using sensory profiling
336 by a trained panel and consumer testing with coeliacs, Morais et al., (2014) found the drivers of
337 liking of gluten-free breads to be apparent softness, the intensity of traditional bread aroma,
338 sweetness and the crumb color while hardness, chewiness, and yeast aroma were drivers of
339 disliking. Using this information, the researchers were able to identify the formulations with the
340 highest acceptability among a range of prototypes. When comparing alternative quinoa varieties,
341 Wu et al., (2017) concluded that overall acceptance of quinoa was driven by higher intensities of
342 grassy aroma, and firm and crunchy texture. In addition, the researchers concluded that consumers
343 could be segmented into four groups based on their acceptance of specific attributes, particularly
344 texture. Such information enables food companies to develop and market different products to suit
345 different consumer preferences.

346 2.6. Step 6: Take action

347 The last step in sensory testing is to interpret the results obtained and to take appropriate action
348 based on the question identified at the start, the objective defined for the test, the specific
349 conditions under which the test results were obtained, and the methods applied for analysis of the
350 test results.

351 3. Some suggestions for future sensory studies on gluten-free bakery products
352 It is the intention that the discussion in this review would stimulate ideas for application of
353 appropriate and where necessary more advanced sensory tools to further understanding to enhance
354 development of gluten-free foods and ingredients.

355 More research on the acceptance and perception of the sensory properties of gluten-free product
356 options by both coeliac and non-coeliac consumers at different life stages is needed. Food products
357 are often eaten in combination with other products, with accompaniments and as part of meals.
358 Research to determine the evaluation of the sensory properties of gluten-free products in such
359 contexts is limited or non-existing. The utilization of more immersive testing environments for
360 evaluating gluten-free products e.g. at the market, health shop or other points of purchase, in a
361 bakery, restaurant environment, school tuck shop could be investigated. To accommodate the
362 requirements of a coeliac member in a family , it may be more practical and safer for all to purchase
363 and consume strictly gluten-free options in the home setting. In the foodservice environment (e.g.
364 airline, hospitals), sensory optimized product options that could satisfy the perceived or real needs
365 of more customers (e.g. inclusive of those seeking gluten-free) are very sought after as it reduces the
366 need for maintaining a variety of stock-keeping units.

367 Due to technological challenges and their niche market status, gluten-free products are often
368 relatively expensive. Evaluation of the sensory properties of a product with its specific gluten-free
369 benefit(s) in relation to the price premium expected to pay could yield very valuable insights for
370 manufacturers. Determining consumers’ willingness to pay more or willingness/reluctance to
371 compromise on sensory expectations or perception is an under-researched area.

372 For technological reasons, gluten-free products tend to have substantially different sensory
373 characteristics compared to gluten-containing products. Yet, in the bakery category, most product
374 development efforts are focused on matching or closely resembling the sensory properties of gluten-
375 containing product options. In a recent study of the acceptability of the sensory properties of
376 commercial gluten-free bread in South Africa, we found that some traits of a commercial gluten-free
377 bread product (roasted sweet aroma, visually perceived texture) were very desirable to consumers.
378 A question to consider is whether a better understanding by consumers of the role and contribution
379 of gluten, or in fact the lack thereof, in bakery products will not lead to greater appreciation and
380 acceptance of gluten-free products? This may, for example, be achieved by on-pack consumer
381 education or social media information strategies. When measuring the acceptability of gluten-free
382 products, product developers may need to reconsider the usual comparison against wheat-based or
383 other gluten-containing products as the “control or standard” (Pagliarini et al., 2010).

384 Much more research to describe the unique sensory properties of naturally gluten-free bakery
385 products, as well as studies to determine consumer acceptance and preferences for these in wider
386 consumer markets, are urgently needed. For these products, gluten-free is a mere additional benefit
387 and not the main marketing feature. Traditional Mexican tortillas (Herrera-Corredor et al., 2007),
388 Ethiopian injera (Yetneberk et al., 2004), Italian taralli (Barbieri et al., 2018), ancient whole grain
389 gluten-free flatbreads (Kahlon and Chiu, 2014) and sorghum biscuits (Serrem et al., 2011) are
390 examples of gluten-free bakery products with potential universal appeal. There is space and
391 opportunity for gluten-free products to be established and appreciated for their unique
392 characteristics without having to compare them to wheat-containing alternatives.

393 4. Conclusions
394 The sensory properties of gluten-free bakery foods are instrumental in guiding people to choose and
395 consume such foods. Methodologies to compare differences or similarities among product options,
396 to describe the sensory properties and to gain insight on consumers’ views on products are critical to
397 the development of suitable products. Sensory and consumer research offers various useful tools
398 that can, in addition to physicochemical analyses and assessment using instrumental devices,
399 provide valuable perspectives on gluten-free ingredients and product options. The application of the
400 tools in a systematic manner based on the six steps to sensory testing process presented here will
401 assist researchers to obtain powerful results to answer research questions.

402 Declarations

403 De Kock, H.L. Conceptualization, Writing original draft; Magano N.N. Reviewing and Editing

404 Funding: This work is based on the research supported in part by the National Research Foundation
405 of South Africa (Grant Numbers: 11578) under the LEAP Agri Joint Research Collaboration
406 Programme 400 NUTRIFOODS project.
407 5. References
408

409 Andersen, B. V., Mielby, L.H., Viemose, I., Bredie, W.L.P., Hyldig, G., 2017. Integration of the sensory
410 experience and post-ingestive measures for understanding food satisfaction. A case study on
411 sucrose replacement by Stevia rebaudiana and addition of beta glucan in fruit drinks. Food
412 Qual. Prefer. 58, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.01.005
413 Ares, G., Varela, P., 2017. Trained vs. consumer panels for analytical testing: Fueling a long lasting
414 debate in the field. Food Qual. Prefer. 61, 79–86.
415 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.10.006
416 Ari Akin, P., Miller, R., Jaffe, T., Koppel, K., Ehmke, L., 2019. Sensory profile and quality of chemically
417 leavened gluten-free sorghum bread containing different starches and hydrocolloids. J. Sci.
418 Food Agric. 99, 4391–4396. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9673
419 Ballesteros López, A.C., Guimarães Pereira, A.J., Junqueira, R.G., 2004. Flour mixture of rice flour,
420 corn and cassava starch in the production of gluten-free white bread. Brazilian Arch. Biol.
421 Technol. 47, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1516-89132004000100009
422 Bangcuyo, R.G., Smith, K.J., Zumach, J.L., Pierce, A.M., Guttman, G.A., Simons, C.T., 2015. The use of
423 immersive technologies to improve consumer testing: The role of ecological validity, context
424 and engagement in evaluating coffee. Food Qual. Prefer. 41, 84–95.
425 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.11.017
426 Barbieri, S., Bendini, A., Balestra, F., Palagano, R., Rocculi, P., Gallina Toschi, T., 2018. Sensory and
427 instrumental study of Taralli, a typical Italian bakery product. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 244, 73–
428 82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-017-2937-8
429 Callejo, M.J., 2011. Present situation on the descriptive sensory analysis of bread. J. Sens. Stud. 26,
430 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00341.x
431 Campo, E., del Arco, L., Urtasun, L., Oria, R., Ferrer-Mairal, A., 2016. Impact of sourdough on sensory
432 properties and consumers’ preference of gluten-free breads enriched with teff flour. J. Cereal
433 Sci. 67, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2015.09.010
434 Cardello, A. V., 2017. Hedonic scaling: assumptions, contexts and frames of reference. Curr. Opin.
435 Food Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2017.05.002
436 Christoph, M.J., Larson, N., Hootman, K.C., Miller, J.M., Neumark-Sztainer, D., 2018. Who Values
437 Gluten-Free? Dietary Intake, Behaviors, and Sociodemographic Characteristics of Young Adults
438 Who Value Gluten-Free Food. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 118, 1389–1398.
439 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2018.04.007
440 Chueamchaitrakun, P., Chompreeda, P., Haruthaithanasan, V., Suwonsichon, T., Kasemsamran, S.,
441 Prinyawiwatkul, W., 2011. Sensory descriptive and texture profile analyses of butter cakes
442 made from composite rice flours. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 46, 2358–2365.
443 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02757.x
444 Dalenberg, J.R., Gutjar, S., Ter Horst, G.J., De Graaf, K., Renken, R.J., Jager, G., 2014. Evoked
445 emotions predict food choice. PLoS One 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115388
446 De Wijk, R.A., Kaneko, D., Dijksterhuis, G.B., van Zoggel, M., Schiona, I., Visalli, M., Zandstra, E.H.,
447 2019. Food perception and emotion measured over time in-lab and in-home. Food Qual.
448 Prefer. 75, 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.02.019
449 Delahunty, C.M.; Drake, M.A.., 2004. Sensory character of cheese and its evaluation, in: Fox, P.F.;
450 McSweeney, P.L.H.; Cogan, T.M.; Guinee, T.P.. (Ed.), Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and
451 Microbiology. Elsevier Academic Press, London, pp. 517–545.
452 Deubler, G., Swaney-Stueve, M., Jepsen, T., Su-Fern, B.P., 2019. The K-State emoji scale. J. Sens.
453 Stud. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12545
454 Drake, M.A., 2007. Invited review: Sensory analysis of dairy foods. J. Dairy Sci.
455 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0332
456 Elía, M., 2011. A procedure for sensory evaluation of bread: protocol developed by a trained panel. J.
457 Sens. Stud. 26, 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00342.x
458 European Co-operation for Accreditation, 2003. EA-4 / 09 G : 2003 Accreditation For Sensory Testing
459 Laboratories, EA-4/09 G. ed.
460 Gaesser, G.A., Angadi, S.S., 2012. Gluten-free diet: Imprudent dietary advice for the general
461 population? J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 112, 1330–1333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2012.06.009
462 Giacalone, D., Jaeger, S.R., 2019. Consumer ratings of situational (‘item-by-use’) appropriateness
463 predict food choice responses obtained in central location tests. Food Qual. Prefer. 78.
464 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103745
465 Hager, A.S., Wolter, A., Czerny, Mariko, Bez, J., Zannini, E., Arendt, E.K., Czerny, Michael, 2012.
466 Investigation of product quality, sensory profile and ultrastructure of breads made from a
467 range of commercial gluten-free flours compared to their wheat counterparts. Eur. Food Res.
468 Technol. 235, 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-012-1763-2
469 Heenan, S.P., Dufour, J.-P., Hamid, N., Harvey, W., Delahunty, C.M., 2008. The sensory quality of
470 fresh bread: Descriptive attributes and consumer perceptions. Food Res. Int. 41, 989–997.
471 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODRES.2008.08.002
472 Heiniö, R.-L., 2014. Sensory Attributes of Bakery Products, in: Bakery Products Science and
473 Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, pp. 391–407.
474 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118792001.ch22
475 Herrera-Corredor, J.A., Saidu, J.E.P., Khachatryan, A., Prinyawiwatkul, W., Carballo-Carballo, A.,
476 Zepeda-Bautista, R., 2007. Identifying Drivers for Consumer Acceptance and Purchase Intent of
477 Corn Tortilla. J. Food Sci. 72, S727–S731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00564.x
478 Jaeger, S.R., Hort, J., Porcherot, C., Ares, G., Pecore, S., MacFie, H.J.H., 2017. Future directions in
479 sensory and consumer science: Four perspectives and audience voting. Food Qual. Prefer. 56,
480 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.006
481 Jensen, S., Skibsted, L.H., Kidmose, U., Thybo, A.K., 2015. Addition of cassava flours in bread-making:
482 Sensory and textural evaluation. LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 60, 292–299.
483 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.08.037
484 Kahlon, T.S., Chiu, M.-C.M., 2014. Ancient Whole Grain Gluten-Free Flatbreads. Food Nutr. Sci. 5,
485 1717–1724. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2014.517185
486 Kaneko, D., Toet, A., Brouwer, A.M., Kallen, V., van Erp, J.B.F., 2018. Methods for evaluating
487 emotions evoked by food experiences: A literature review. Front. Psychol.
488 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00911
489 Kihlberg, I., Johansson, L., Langsrud, Ø., Risvik, E., 2005. Effects of information on liking of bread.
490 Food Qual. Prefer. 16, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2003.12.005
491 King, S.C., Snow, J., Meiselman, H.L., Sainsbury, J., Carr, B.T., McCafferty, D., Serrano, D., Gillette, M.,
492 Millard, L., Li, Q., 2015. Development of a questionnaire to measure consumer wellness
493 associated with foods: The WellSense ProfileTM. Food Qual. Prefer. 39, 82–94.
494 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.06.003
495 Lagast, S., Gellynck, X., Schouteten, J.J., De Herdt, V., De Steur, H., 2017. Consumers’ emotions
496 elicited by food: A systematic review of explicit and implicit methods. Trends Food Sci. Technol.
497 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.09.006
498 Lamacchia, C., Camarca, A., Picascia, S., Di Luccia, A., Gianfrani, C., 2014. Cereal-based gluten-free
499 food: How to reconcile nutritional and technological properties of wheat proteins with safety
500 for celiac disease patients. Nutrients. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu6020575
501 Laureati, M., Giussani, B., Pagliarini, E., 2012. Sensory and hedonic perception of gluten-free bread:
502 Comparison between celiac and non-celiac subjects. Food Res. Int. 46, 326–333.
503 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2011.12.020
504 Lawless, H.T., Heymann, H., 2010. Sensory evaluation of food : principles and practices. Springer,
505 New York.
506 Lim, J., 2011. Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory. Food Qual. Prefer. 22, 733–747.
507 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.05.008
508 Machado Alencar, N.M., Steel, C.J., Alvim, I.D., de Morais, E.C., Andre Bolini, H.M., 2015. Addition of
509 quinoa and amaranth flour in gluten-free breads: Temporal profile and instrumental analysis.
510 LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 62, 1011–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.02.029
511 Mazzeo, T., Brambillasca, F., Pellegrini, N., Valmarana, R., Corti, F., Colombo, C., Agostoni, C., 2014.
512 Evaluation of visual and taste preferences of some gluten-free commercial products in a group
513 of celiac children. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 65, 112–116.
514 https://doi.org/10.3109/09637486.2013.836740
515 Morais, E.C., Cruz, A.G., Faria, J.A.F., Bolini, H.M.A., 2014. Prebiotic gluten-free bread: Sensory
516 profiling and drivers of liking. LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 55, 248–254.
517 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.07.014
518 Muñoz, A.M., Keane, P.A., 2017. Original Flavor and Texture Profile and Modified/Derivative Profile
519 Descriptive Methods, in: Descriptive Analysis in Sensory Evaluation. wiley, pp. 237–285.
520 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118991657.ch7
521 Nkhabutlane, P., de Kock, H.L., du Rand, G.E., 2019. Culinary practices: preparation techniques and
522 consumption of Basotho cereal breads in Lesotho. J. Ethn. Foods 6, 12.
523 https://doi.org/10.1186/s42779-019-0012-8
524 O’Shea, N., Arendt, E., Gallagher, E., 2014. State of the Art in Gluten-Free Research. J. Food Sci. 79.
525 https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12479
526 Ohri-Vachaspati, P., Leviton, L.C., 2010. Measuring Food Environments: A Guide to Available
527 Instruments. https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.080909-LIT-190
528 Olojede, A.O., Sanni, A.I., Banwo, K., 2020. Effect of legume addition on the physiochemical and
529 sensorial attributes of sorghum-based sourdough bread. LWT 118.
530 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108769
531 Pagliarini, E., Laureati, M., Lavelli, V., 2010. Sensory evaluation of gluten-free breads assessed by a
532 trained panel of celiac assessors. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 231, 37–46.
533 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-010-1249-z
534 Pliner, P., Hobden, K., 1992. Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in
535 humans. Appetite 19, 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-6663(92)90014-W
536 Pontual, I., Amaral, G. V., Esmerino, E.A., Pimentel, T.C., Freitas, M.Q., Fukuda, R.K., Sant’Ana, I.L.,
537 Silva, L.G., Cruz, A.G., 2017. Assessing consumer expectations about pizza: A study on celiac and
538 non-celiac individuals using the word association technique. Food Res. Int. 94, 1–5.
539 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.01.018
540 Prada, M., Godinho, C., Rodrigues, D.L., Lopes, C., Garrido, M. V., 2019. The impact of a gluten-free
541 claim on the perceived healthfulness, calories, level of processing and expected taste of food
542 products. Food Qual. Prefer. 73, 284–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.10.013
543 Prescott, J., Hayes, J.E., Byrnes, N.K., 2014. Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems,
544 Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-
545 52512-3.00065-6
546 Rogers, L., 2017. Discrimination Testing in Sensory Science: A Practical Handbook, Discrimination
547 Testing in Sensory Science: A Practical Handbook.
548 Roininen, K., Lähteenmäki, L., Tuorila, H., 1999. Quantification of consumer attitudes to health and
549 hedonic characteristics of foods. Appetite 33, 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0232
550 Serrem, C.A., de Kock, H.L., Taylor, J.R.N., 2011. Nutritional quality, sensory quality and consumer
551 acceptability of sorghum and bread wheat biscuits fortified with defatted soy flour. Int. J. Food
552 Sci. Technol. 46, 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02451.x
553 Steptoe, A., Pollard, T.M., Wardle, J., 1995. Development of a Measure of the Motives Underlying
554 the Selection of Food: the Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite.
555 https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1995.0061
556 Suwonsichon, S., 2019. The importance of sensory lexicons for research and development of food
557 products. Foods. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8010027
558 Torbica, A., Hadnadev, M., Dapčević, T., 2010. Rheological, textural and sensory properties of gluten-
559 free bread formulations based on rice and buckwheat flour. Food Hydrocoll. 24, 626–632.
560 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2010.03.004
561 van Bommel, R., Stieger, M., Boelee, N., Schlich, P., Jager, G., 2019. From first to last bite: Temporal
562 dynamics of sensory and hedonic perceptions using a multiple-intake approach. Food Qual.
563 Prefer. 78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103748
564 Varela, P., Ares, G., 2012. Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science.
565 A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Res. Int. 48, 893–908.
566 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.06.037
567 Vidal, V.A.S., Paglarini, C.S., Freitas, M.Q., Coimbra, L.O., Esmerino, E.A., Pollonio, M.A.R., Cruz, A.G.,
568 2019. Q Methodology: An interesting strategy for concept profile and sensory description of
569 low sodium salted meat. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.108000
570 Wu, G., Ross, C.F., Morris, C.F., Murphy, K.M., 2017. Lexicon Development, Consumer Acceptance,
571 and Drivers of Liking of Quinoa Varieties. J. Food Sci. 82, 993–1005.
572 https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13677
573 Yetneberk, S., de Kock, H.L., Rooney, L.W., Taylor, J.R.N., 2004. Effects of sorghum cultivar on injera
574 quality. Cereal Chem. 81, 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1094/CCHEM.2004.81.3.314
575 Zapata, F., Zapata, E., Rodríguez-Sandoval, E., 2019. Influence of guar gum on the baking quality of
576 gluten-free cheese bread made using frozen and chilled dough. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 54,
577 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13936
1940

Flavour profile
1950
method

1960 Time-intensity

Texture profile
1970

Quantitative Descriptive Analysis

SpectrumTM Descriptive
QDA®
Analysis Method
1980
Free-Choice Profiling Free Sorting

1990 Hybrid methods

Generic descriptive analysis Projective Mapping
Progressive profiling
2000 Flash profile Napping®
Labelled Sorting

Ranking descriptive analysis Directed Sorting

Temporal Dominance Check-all-that-apply
RDA Polarized Sensory Sorted Napping Ultra flash
2010 of Sensations TDS CATA
Positioning PSP profiling
Temporal Dominance Hierachical Sorting
Pivot profile
of Emotions TDE Temporal Check-all-that-apply Ideal Profile
Rate-all-that-apply
TCATA Method IPM
RATA
2020

Adapted from a slide by Prof Wender Bredie, University of Copenhagen presented at ESN Seminar 2008, Pretoria South Africa
White wheat bread standard Gluten-free white bread A Gluten-free white bread B

The circles indicate the crumb portions selected for serving to the sensory panel
Highlights

• Update on sensory tools available for development of gluten-free bakery products

• Six steps to Sensory Evaluation, a simple to use guide to answer questions
• Suggestions for future sensory studies on gluten-free bakery products
Conflict of interest

None

Declarations

De Kock, H.L. Conceptualization, Writing original draft; Magano N.N. Reviewing and Editing

Funding: This work was supported by the grant funding from LEAP Agri 400 NUTRIFOODS project.