2.3.1. Beef Trial

Two different experimental conditions were set-up; a traditional sensory booth (Figure 1a) and an immersive VR restaurant (Figure 1b). The VR restaurant context was captured using a Samsung Gear 360 4 K Ultra High Definition (HD) camera at a restaurant in Dublin, Ireland. The restaurant was open to customers during the recording to ensure the atmosphere created was as close as possible to real-life conditions. Audio recordings

consisting of indistinguishable conversation and background noises were also recorded. The 360-degree video was 2 min in length and was set to loop throughout the tasting condition. The video was presented to participants through a head mounted display (HMD) (Oculus Go). sisting of indistinguishable conversation and background noises were also recorded. The 360-degree video was 2 min in length and was set to loop throughout the tasting condition. The video was presented to participants through a head mounted display (HMD) (Oculus Go). 360-degree video was 2 min in length and was set to loop throughout the tasting condition. The video was presented to participants through a head mounted display (HMD) (Oculus Go).

Two different experimental conditions were set-up; a traditional sensory booth (Figure 1a) and an immersive VR restaurant (Figure 1b). The VR restaurant context was captured using a Samsung Gear 360 4 K Ultra High Definition (HD) camera at a restaurant in Dublin, Ireland. The restaurant was open to customers during the recording to ensure the atmosphere created was as close as possible to real-life conditions. Audio recordings con-

Two different experimental conditions were set-up; a traditional sensory booth (Figure 1a) and an immersive VR restaurant (Figure 1b). The VR restaurant context was captured using a Samsung Gear 360 4 K Ultra High Definition (HD) camera at a restaurant in Dublin, Ireland. The restaurant was open to customers during the recording to ensure the atmosphere created was as close as possible to real-life conditions. Audio recordings consisting of indistinguishable conversation and background noises were also recorded. The

*Foods* **2021**, *10*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 11

*Foods* **2021**, *10*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 11

**Figure 1.** Contextual settings for the sensory evaluation of beef samples: (**a**) Traditional sensory booth; (**b**) Virtual Reality (VR) restaurant. **Figure 1.** Contextual settings for the sensory evaluation of beef samples: (**a**) Traditional sensory booth; (**b**) Virtual Reality (VR) restaurant. (VR) restaurant.

#### 2.3.2. Chocolate Trial 2.3.2. Chocolate Trial 2.3.2. Chocolate Trial

*2.3. Contextual Settings*

*2.3. Contextual Settings*

2.3.1. Beef Trial

2.3.1. Beef Trial

Participants evaluated chocolate in three different environmental contexts: a traditional sensory booth, a VR busy city (Figure 2a), and a VR Irish countryside (Figure 2b). These specific VR contexts were chosen as they were expected to elicit different hedonic responses from participants. The VR environments were created using 360-degree videos displayed through a HMD (Oculus Go). The VR videos were captured using a Garmin VIRB 360 camera and included audio recordings. Both 360-degree videos had a length of 2 min and the videos were set to loop during each tasting session. The 360-degree busy city video was recorded in Dublin City, Ireland, and depicted the International Financial Services Centre (IFSC), public transport, and people walking through the streets. The video was supported by the sounds of the busy city environment. The 360-degree countryside video was recorded in a rural part of Meath, Ireland and provided a view of a typical Irish countryside setting with bright sunlight, the movement of the grass and the background noises included the sound of the wind. Participants evaluated chocolate in three different environmental contexts: a traditional sensory booth, a VR busy city (Figure 2a), and a VR Irish countryside (Figure 2b). These specific VR contexts were chosen as they were expected to elicit different hedonic responses from participants. The VR environments were created using 360-degree videos displayed through a HMD (Oculus Go). The VR videos were captured using a Garmin VIRB 360 camera and included audio recordings. Both 360-degree videos had a length of 2 min and the videos were set to loop during each tasting session. The 360-degree busy city video was recorded in Dublin City, Ireland, and depicted the International Financial Services Centre (IFSC), public transport, and people walking through the streets. The video was supported by the sounds of the busy city environment. The 360-degree countryside video was recorded in a rural part of Meath, Ireland and provided a view of a typical Irish countryside setting with bright sunlight, the movement of the grass and the background noises included the sound of the wind. Participants evaluated chocolate in three different environmental contexts: a traditional sensory booth, a VR busy city (Figure 2a), and a VR Irish countryside (Figure 2b). These specific VR contexts were chosen as they were expected to elicit different hedonic responses from participants. The VR environments were created using 360-degree videos displayed through a HMD (Oculus Go). The VR videos were captured using a Garmin VIRB 360 camera and included audio recordings. Both 360-degree videos had a length of 2 min and the videos were set to loop during each tasting session. The 360-degree busy city video was recorded in Dublin City, Ireland, and depicted the International Financial Services Centre (IFSC), public transport, and people walking through the streets. The video was supported by the sounds of the busy city environment. The 360-degree countryside video was recorded in a rural part of Meath, Ireland and provided a view of a typical Irish countryside setting with bright sunlight, the movement of the grass and the background noises included the sound of the wind.

(**a**) (**b**) **Figure 2.** Contextual settings for the sensory evaluation of chocolate: (**a**) VR busy city (Dublin, Ireland) and (**b**) VR Irish countryside.

For both trials, participants were asked questions regarding their level of engagement, perceived effort to assess the samples, level of distraction, and purchase intent. The following questions were asked for all contextual environments: Was the sensory testing experience memorable? Do you think testing the product in the surrounding environment requires much effort? Do you think the surrounding environment distracted you from performing the task? Responses to these questions were rated on a 7-point scale where

1 = not at all and 7 = very much. Purchase intent of each sample was measured using 5-point scale where 1 = definitely not buy and 5 = definitely buy.
