. 2024 Sep 1;44(5):1156–1166. doi: 10.5851/kosfa.2024.e69

Table 3. Analysis of texture profile parameters for imitated muscle fiber (IMF) corresponding to conventional meat.

Parameter		Imitated fiber					SEM	p-value
Parameter		CM	CMF	PPF	WPF	CPF	SEM	p-value
Hardness (N)	Fresh	25.879^B	34.316^A	28.509^B	21.088^C	14.496^D	1.421	<0.0001
Hardness (N)	Cooked	37.799^B	62.928^A	32.194^C	14.557^E	19.182^D	0.949	<0.0001
Springiness	Fresh	0.869	0.871	0.933	0.932	0.913	0.002	0.0678
Springiness	Cooked	0.895	0.870	0.889	0.863	0.849	0.002	0.4530
Gumminess (N)	Fresh	3.642^D	8.288^B	14.634^A	5.542^C	5.000^CD	0.654	<0.0001
Gumminess (N)	Cooked	6.244^D	24.589^A	13.291^B	5.997^D	8.579^C	0.668	<0.0001
Chewiness (N)	Fresh	4.790^C	7.226^B	12.774^A	5.353^C	4.618^C	0.759	<0.0001
Chewiness (N)	Cooked	7.439^C	23.052^A	11.746^B	4.905^D	7.522^C	0.373	<0.0001
Cohesiveness	Fresh	0.262^C	0.304^BC	0.500^A	0.255^C	0.354^B	0.001	<0.0001
Cohesiveness	Cooked	0.573^A	0.392^D	0.512^B	0.405^CD	0.450^C	0.001	<0.0001

^A–E

Different letters within a row indicate statistically significant differences between IMFs at p<0.05.

CM, conventional meat; CMF, conventional meat fiber; PPF, pea protein fiber; WPF, wheat protein fiber; CPF, combination protein fiber.