ABSTRACT This study investigated the impact of two types of ingredients, edible fungi ( Lentinula edodes , Agrocybe aegerita , Agaricus blazei Murill , and Dictyophora indusiate ) and medicine and food homology (MFH) substances ( Panax ginseng , Angelica sinensis , and Astragalus membranaceus ) on the sensory attributes and emotional responses elicited by chicken soups. Eight chicken soup samples were evaluated by 12 trained panelists using descriptive analysis (DA) and by 104 consumers using the check‐all‐that‐apply (CATA) method. The results showed that, in addition to significant differences in characteristic ingredient flavors, the intensity of other sensory attributes also differed significantly among the samples. Soups containing the three Agaricales fungi ( Lentinula edodes , Agrocybe aegerita , and Agaricus blazei Murill ) were more strongly associated with fullness, umami, and saltiness. In contrast, the soup prepared with Phallales ( Dictyophora indusiate ) exhibited a distinct flavor profile compared to the other edible fungi. Soups with MFH ingredients were more frequently associated with sweet or bitter flavors. While the overall trends between DA and CATA were consistent, many consumers were unable to accurately identify the characteristic flavors of the added ingredients. CATA emotional response data showed significant differences among the 29 emotional attributes. Among the samples, the soup containing Lentinula edodes received the highest consumer acceptance and was associated with positive emotions such as eagerness, pleasantness, and joy. In conclusion, the addition of different ingredients significantly affects the sensory and emotional attributes of chicken soup. These findings offer new ideas for chicken soup product development and consumer insights. Practical Applications This study formulates a variety of edible fungi or medicine and food homology (MFH) chicken soup combinations to enhance consumer choice and increase sales potential. Furthermore, it serves as a channel to convey consumer feedback to chefs and producers, enabling them to tailor product development to market preferences and create more consumer‐led offerings.
Cheng et al. (Sun,) studied this question.