Multi-attribute temporal descriptive methods in sensory analysis applied in food science: Protocol for a scoping review

Background: Sensory perception is a temporal phenomenon highly present in food evaluation. Over the last decades, several sensory analysis methods have been developed to determine how our processing of the stimuli changes during tasting. These methods differ in several parameters: how attributes are characterized (intensity, dominance or applicability), the number of attributes evaluated, the moment of sample characterization (simultaneously with the tasting in continuous or discrete time, retrospectively), the required panel (trained subjects or consumers), etc. At the moment, there is no systematic review encompassing the full scope of this topic. This article presents the protocol for conducting a scoping review on multi-attribute temporal descriptive methods in sensory analysis in food science. Methods: The protocol was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. The research question was "how have multi-attribute temporal descriptive methods been implemented, used and compared in sensory analysis?". The eligibility criteria were defined using the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study design) framework. This protocol details how the articles of the final review will be retrieved, selected and analyzed. The search will be based on the querying of two academic research databases (Scopus and Web of Science). The main topics reported in research involving sensory analyses methods will be identified and summarized in a data extraction form. This form (detailed in the protocol) will be used to report pertinent information regarding the objectives of the review. It could also be reused as a guideline for carrying out and reporting results of future research in a more standardized way. A quality appraisal process was derived from literature. It will be applied on the included articles of the review, and could also be re-used to ensure that future publications meet higher quality levels. Finally, for the sake of transparency, the limitations of the protocol are discussed.