## 3 Results
### Effect of Heterogeneous Salt Distribution on Consumer Reaction  
The results of a hedonic assessment of the beef burgers with a varied spatial distribution of salt did not show any significant differences in the liking of any sensory traits (Table 6). There was no effect on the purchase intent. A spatial salt distribution did not affect the saltiness enhancement, and the scores of the consumers' saltiness perception ranged between 5.8 and 5.9 c.u. The assessment using a visual analog scale did not show any significant differences. Perhaps the untrained panellists could not distinguish differences, or the data were inconsistent in a study group. For this reason, to reanalyse the data, a new rank-based variable was created, wherein a relationship between individual samples was indicated. The sample that was less salty than the others received a rank of 1, the samples that were perceived as equally salty received a rank of 2, and the sample that was saltier than the others received a rank of 3. The sum of the ranks was as follows:  
* HM 0.7%, \(\sum\) = 204;
* HT-L-EX, \(\sum\) = 203;
* HT-L-IN, \(\sum\) = 211. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\(\alpha\),\(\beta\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\(\beta\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\(\beta\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\(\beta\))**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Sensory Attributes**} & **HM 0.7\%** & **HT-L-EX** & **HT-L-IN** & **HT-M-EX** & **HT-M-IN** & **HT-H-EX** & **HT-H-IN** \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**–**_x Intensity (0-10 c.u. )_ \(\pm\) SE**} \\ \hline
**beef odour** & 4.8 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.6 & 5.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.5 & 5.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.4 & 5.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.6 & 5.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.5 & 5.4 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.6 & 4.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.5 \\ \hline
**hardness** & 3.9 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.4 & 4.9 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.5 & 4.0 \({}^{\text{b}c}\)\(\pm\) 0.5 & 4.2 \({}^{\text{a,b,c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.5 & 4.0 \({}^{\text{b,c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.5 & 4.7 \({}^{\text{a,b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.6 & 3.2 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.4 \\ \hline
**juiciness** & 6.1 \({}^{\text{a,b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.4 & 5.6 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.4 & 6.3 \({}^{\text{a,b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.5 & 5.5 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.4 & 6.7 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.4 & 6.0 \({}^{\text{a,b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.5 & 6.5 \({}^{\text{a,b}  
The Pearson's chi-squared test value was 2.98, and the difference was insignificant (\(p=0.5614\)). There were no significant effects of gender, age, education, financial situation, dwelling place, beef burger consumption frequency, or preferred degree of doneness. There was a positive relationship between hunger intensity and saltiness perception (rho = 0.13; \(p\leq 0.05\)). Participants who had high scores for habitual dietary salt intake assessed a lower saltiness of HM 0.7% (homogeneously distributed salt) than HT-L-IN (Figure 3), while the results of the means of saltiness intensity were not statistically significant; when saltiness was included as a rank-based variable, the difference was significant. This result is aligned with the findings from the trained sensory panel and offers the intriguing possibility that people with a higher salt intake in their diet may be more sensitive to a contrast-induced saltiness enhancement. More detailed studies potentially on specific population subgroups and cohorts would be enlightening.