Subtle changes in the flavour and texture of a drink enhance expectations of satiety

Table 1 Sensory ratings for each fruit yogurt drink sample used in study one

	Fruit yogurt drink sample (tara gum g/100g)
	0	0.03	0.06	0.09	0.13	0.16	0.19	0.22	0.25	0.28	0.31	0.34	0.38	0.41	0.44	0.47	Pearson’s r
Thickness	10.5 ± 1.9	15.9 ± 3.0	23.7 ± 3.7	26.5 ± 4.3	30.1 ± 3.3	30.9 ± 4.3	41.0 ± 4.1	40.6 ± 4.0	56.7 ± 4.0	54.8 ± 3.4	64.3 ± 3.7	64.0 ± 3.8	73.4 ± 3.2	81.5 ± 2.3	83.1 ± 2.0	84.9 ± 1.9	0.92 ^a
Creaminess	24.8 ± 3.1	31.5 ± 4.5	41.1 ± 4.1	41.9 ± 4.2	34.7 ± 2.9	47.7 ± 3.2	51.9 ± 3.5	50.6 ± 3.4	55.6 ± 3.7	60.3 ± 2.8	62.9 ± 3.2	59.8 ± 2.9	70.8 ± 3.2	70.1 ± 3.2	72.9 ± 3.4	76.9 ± 3.0	0.92 ^a
Stickiness	21.1 ± 3.5	25.2 ± 3.8	24.8 ± 3.4	26.7 ± 4.1	31.3 ± 3.6	29.7 ± 3.8	34.8 ± 3.3	33.6 ± 4.2	35.7 ± 3.9	40.6 ± 4.9	47.9 ± 3.7	44.6 ± 4.6	51.9 ± 4.6	53.7 ± 4.9	51.1 ± 4.9	53.8 ± 5.4	0.95 ^a
Sweetness	58.7 ± 3.9	57.0 ± 4.0	58.0 ± 4.0	61.7 ± 4.2	59.7 ± 4.3	59.1 ± 3.6	61.2 ± 3.8	59.1 ± 3.0	65.2 ± 2.5	62.4 ± 3.3	59.8 ± 3.7	61.0 ± 2.7	61.3 ± 3.6	61.1 ± 3.8	58.6 ± 3.6	62.2 ± 3.6	0.29 non significant
Sourness	35.0 ± 4.7	39.0 ± 5.1	42.2 ± 4.3	36.9 ± 4.8	40.7 ± 4.4	36.1 ± 4.3	41.4 ± 4.6	44.3 ± 4.7	36.9 ± 4.3	38.4 ± 4.2	36.7 ± 4.8	38.4 ± 4.3	47.8 ± 5.1	35.6 ± 5.3	36.8 ± 4.3	42.4 ± 5.0	0.13 non significant
Fruitiness	55.4 ± 3.8	60.4 ± 3.3	57.8 ± 4.4	59.3 ± 3.6	63.7 ± 2.6	63.0 ± 3.1	60.0 ± 3.7	60.4 ± 3.5	63.6 ± 2.8	66.8 ± 3.1	66.2 ± 2.3	61.8 ± 2.7	64.2 ± 3.3	64.0 ± 2.7	64.6 ± 3.7	61.2 ± 4.4	0.50 ^b

Numbers represent the mean visual analogue scale (VAS) rating (0 = not at all, 100 = extremely) and associated SEM for each of the sensory evaluations across the 16 fruit yogurt drinks varying in the amount of tara gum /100g. Pearson’s r shows the relationship between each sensory characteristic and the drink’s measured viscosity. ^a Correlation coefficient is significant at P < 0.001. ^b Correlation coefficient is significant at P < 0.05.

ISSN: 2044-7248