2.2.2. Semi-Trained Panel Evaluation

Participant Selection and Orientation: A semi-trained panel (*n* = 10; 8 females, 2 males, ages 23–46) also evaluated the sensory profile of the MAPS-jambalaya and the control with rate-all-that-apply (RATA) questions. All the members of the semi-trained panel had previous experience in conducting sensory evaluation and had participated in multiple descriptive panels conducted at the WSU Sensory Science Center [22].

These evaluations were also done at Weeks 2, 8, and 12 of storage. RATA methodology has been reported to be a valid and reliable sensory profiling tool suitable for semi-trained panels [22,27]. For each session, the control trays were thawed in water at room temperature for 1.5 h. Next, each jambalaya tray (250 g) was warmed at 45–50 ◦C for 30 min (15 min on each side, top and bottom) with a food warmer (Glo-Ray HATCO Corporation, Milwaukee, WI, USA). Then the trays were opened, and the jambalaya was carefully mixed. A total of 17– 20 g of warmed jambalaya was then portioned into plastic cups; each sample was checked to ensure it contained all of the proportionally identical components of the jambalaya (sausage, shrimp, chicken). All samples were evaluated at 40 ± 1 ◦C. A 30 s break was given after the evaluation of each sample. Filtered water and unsalted crackers (Nabisco, NJ, USA) were provided as palate cleansers. Evaluations were conducted individually, in a discussion room, under white lighting. ration, Milwaukee, WI, USA). Then the trays were opened, and the jambalaya was carefully mixed. A total of 17–20 g of warmed jambalaya was then portioned into plastic cups; each sample was checked to ensure it contained all of the proportionally identical components of the jambalaya (sausage, shrimp, chicken). All samples were evaluated at 40 ± 1 °C. A 30 s break was given after the evaluation of each sample. Filtered water and unsalted crackers (Nabisco, NJ, USA) were provided as palate cleansers. Evaluations were conducted individually, in a discussion room, under white lighting.

These evaluations were also done at Weeks 2, 8, and 12 of storage. RATA methodology has been reported to be a valid and reliable sensory profiling tool suitable for semitrained panels [22,27]. For each session, the control trays were thawed in water at room temperature for 1.5 h. Next, each jambalaya tray (250 g) was warmed at 45–50 °C for 30 min (15 min on each side, top and bottom) with a food warmer (Glo-Ray HATCO Corpo-

*Foods* **2021**, *10*, 1623 9 of 19

RATA questions for the jambalaya were divided into six sections: aroma, appearance, taste/flavor, texture, mouthfeel, and aftertaste. As assessors evaluated six sensory modalities-aroma, followed by appearance, taste/flavor, texture, mouthfeel and aftertaste, they checked the terms they considered appropriate to describe the jambalaya samples (Figure 2). The list consisted of 4 to 17 terms, depending on the sensory modality. The terms used for each of the sensory modalities were defined based on pilot work. Assessors then rated the intensity of the selected terms, using a three-point structured scale (low, medium, and high). Answers were collected with a paper-based ballot. The jambalaya samples were coded with three-digit codes and presented in monadic sequential, randomized, balanced order. RATA questions for the jambalaya were divided into six sections: aroma, appearance, taste/flavor, texture, mouthfeel, and aftertaste. As assessors evaluated six sensory modalities-aroma, followed by appearance, taste/flavor, texture, mouthfeel and aftertaste, they checked the terms they considered appropriate to describe the jambalaya samples (Figure 2). The list consisted of 4 to 17 terms, depending on the sensory modality. The terms used for each of the sensory modalities were defined based on pilot work. Assessors then rated the intensity of the selected terms, using a three-point structured scale (low, medium, and high). Answers were collected with a paper-based ballot. The jambalaya samples were coded with three-digit codes and presented in monadic sequential, randomized, balanced order.


**Figure 2.** *Cont.*


*Foods* **2021**, *10*, 1623 10 of 19

**Figure 2.** List of the sensory attributes tested for the MAPS-jambalaya and the control with RATA questions. **Figure 2.** List of the sensory attributes tested for the MAPS-jambalaya and the control with RATA questions.

#### *2.3. Analyses 2.3. Analyses*

2.3.1. Sensory Data Analysis

2.3.1. Sensory Data Analysis HUT Data: During the 12-week storage period, a repeated measures ANOVA with mixed models was conducted to evaluate the liking results of the different sensory modalities of the jambalaya samples. Processing method, storage time, having a partner and the interaction between processing method\*time were analyzed as the fixed factors, with storage time as the repeated factor, and panelists as the subject factor. Means were separated with Tukey's HSD test. The JAR scale results were interpreted with penalty analysis for each of the meals at the three-evaluation time points (2, 8 and 12 weeks). XLSTAT 2017 HUT Data: During the 12-week storage period, a repeated measures ANOVA with mixed models was conducted to evaluate the liking results of the different sensory modalities of the jambalaya samples. Processing method, storage time, having a partner and the interaction between processing method\*time were analyzed as the fixed factors, with storage time as the repeated factor, and panelists as the subject factor. Means were separated with Tukey's HSD test. The JAR scale results were interpreted with penalty analysis for each of the meals at the three-evaluation time points (2, 8 and 12 weeks). XLSTAT 2017 (Addinsoft, Paris, France) statistical software was used for all sensory data analyses.

(Addinsoft, Paris, France) statistical software was used for all sensory data analyses. RATA Data: RATA results were analyzed by treating the RATA scores as continuous data and expanding the scale to four points (0, 1, 2, 3 for absent, low, medium, and high, respectively) [22,28,29]. A repeated measures ANOVA with mixed models was conducted. Processing method and storage time and the interaction (treatment\*time) were analyzed as the fixed factors, storage time as the repeated factor, and participants as the RATA Data: RATA results were analyzed by treating the RATA scores as continuous data and expanding the scale to four points (0, 1, 2, 3 for absent, low, medium, and high, respectively) [22,28,29]. A repeated measures ANOVA with mixed models was conducted. Processing method and storage time and the interaction (treatment\*time) were analyzed as the fixed factors, storage time as the repeated factor, and participants as the subject factor. Means were separated with Tukey's HSD test. Significance was defined as *p* < 0.05.

subject factor. Means were separated with Tukey's HSD test. Significance was defined as *p* < 0.05. If the terms were used at a frequency of 20% or less by the assessors, those terms were not considered for analysis [22]. Out of the 82 terms (Figure 2) that comprised the complete list of attributes, 14 were not considered for analysis. The results from the assessors were If the terms were used at a frequency of 20% or less by the assessors, those terms were not considered for analysis [22]. Out of the 82 terms (Figure 2) that comprised the complete list of attributes, 14 were not considered for analysis. The results from the assessors were validated by internal agreement on the rating of the intensity of one of the attributes, as described by Montero et al. (2020) [22].

#### validated by internal agreement on the rating of the intensity of one of the attributes, as described by Montero et al. (2020) [22]. 2.3.2. Online Auction Data Analysis

2.3.2. Online Auction Data Analysis Data from the online auction were analyzed by a repeated measures ANOVA with mixed models. Treatment and storage time and the interaction (treatment × time) were Data from the online auction were analyzed by a repeated measures ANOVA with mixed models. Treatment and storage time and the interaction (treatment × time) were analyzed as the fixed factors, storage time as the repeated factor, and participants as the subject factor. Means were separated with Tukey's HSD test (HSD).

#### analyzed as the fixed factors, storage time as the repeated factor, and participants as the subject factor. Means were separated with Tukey's HSD test (HSD). **3. Results and Discussion**

**3. Results and Discussion** 

The study evaluated two main hypotheses.

The study evaluated two main hypotheses.

**Hypothesis 1.** *The acceptance/liking of different sensory characteristics of MAPS-processed jambalaya would not change significantly during storage at 2* ◦*C as compared to a control (cooked and frozen jambalaya) over a 12-week storage period.*

**Hypothesis 2.** *Ecologically valid measures of consumer acceptance (a modified HUT and an online auction) would impact the degree of acceptance of the RTE meals. Hypothesis 2 employed an exploratory approach regarding how the social environment may impact the liking of RTE jambalaya meals when a partner joins the evaluation of the meals.*
