The influence of companion foods on sensory attribute perception and liking of regular and sodium‐reduced foods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among major contributors of dietary sodium intake, many foods are consumed together with companion foods, specifically condiments and carriers. This study compared sensory profiles and overall liking between commercially available regular and sodium-reduced foods consumed with or without companion foods; and examined changes in sensory profiles and overall liking when foods are consumed in condiment-carrier pairs. Three distinct consumer panels evaluated one of the three condiment-carrier pairs, salsa-corn chips (n = 98, 63% female), ketchup-tater tots (n = 100, 69% female), and soy sauce-cooked rice (n = 98, 70% female). For each panel, consumers evaluated five samples; including the regular and sodium-reduced carriers/condiments alone, the companion food alone, and the regular and sodium-reduced foods each with its companion food. Samples were rated for overall liking (9-point hedonic scale) and the intensity of defining sensory attributes (3-point Rate-All-That-Apply scale). Consumers perceived sensory attribute differences between regular and sodium-reduced corn chips (salty) and soy sauce (salty, sweet), but not ketchup. The presence of the companion food reduced consumer ability to discriminate sensory attributes between regular and sodium-reduced products and changed sensory profiles and liking of the foods. Additionally, consumer heterogeneity in hedonic response identified three consumer segments in each consumer panel. Consumer segments differed in their sensory attribute perception. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: It is possible for the food industry to reduce sodium in a range of companion foods without changing consumer preference. The selection of companion foods is important to consumer evaluation of foods under the context of food pairing; corn chips-salsa and ketchup-tater tots are appropriate food pairs. Future sensory studies on food reformulation toward sodium reduction should target specific consumer segments of product liking and sensory attribute perception, which may in turn be influenced by food consumption frequency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".