## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Rheological Properties  
The addition of wheat fibre to a recipe with sucrose (SWF) increased the stickiness, work adhesion, and strength of the dough, while the addition of oat fibre (SOF) resulted in a significant reduction in rheological parameters compared to dough with sucrose alone (Table 2). In our study, the wheat (Nutriose) and oat (PromOat) fibres we used differed in composition (Section 2.1). Moreover, Nutriose 06 is a well-soluble fibre consisting of coarser, irregular particles, some of which are hollow [19]. [PERSON] et al. [19] showed that the addition of soluble fibres such as Nutriose and polydextrose to gluten-free dough resulted in lower consistency and elasticity. The authors found that the size of the fibre particles significantly affected the rheological properties of the gluten-free dough. In addition, they explained that fibres are water-soluble, helping to surround the starch granules, which limits the amount of starch available for water absorption. In another study, it was proven that flour mixtures with Nutriose soluble fibre, inulin, and polydextrose exhibited weaker water-binding capacity than flour alone. The addition of soluble fibre slightly modified the rheological properties of the dough, causing a decrease in texture [40]. \(\beta\)-glucan strongly binds water and, when added to food, modifies its rheological properties and texture [21]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Short bread** \\ **Bscuits Variant** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Dough**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Short bread Bscuits**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **Stickiness** & **Work of** & **Dough Strength** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(L^{\bullet}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(a^{\bullet}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(b^{\bullet}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\Delta E\)} \\  & **(g)** & & & & & & \\ \hline S & 7.75 \(\pm\) 1.70 b  & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.05 b  & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.03 b  & 71.24 \(\pm\) 0.28 c  & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.07 a  & 17.60 \(\pm\) 0.22 a  & - \\ SWF & 14.09 \(\pm\) 2.56 c  & 0.44 \(\pm\) 0.09 c  & 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.02 c  & 67.87 \(\pm\) 0.31 b  & 0.51 \(\pm\) 0.13 b  & 17.78 \(\pm\) 0.24 a  & 3.4 \(\pm\) 0.2 a  \\ SOF & 4.23 \(\pm\) 0.33 a  & 0.11 \(\pm\) 0.01 a  & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.02 a  & 59.99 \(\pm\) 0.59 a  & 3.71 \(\pm\) 0.03 c  & 23.6 \(\pm\) 0.67 b  & 13.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 b  \\ TWF & 6.67 \(\pm\) 2.49 a  & 0.19 \(\pm\) 0.09 x  & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.05 v  & 68.37 \(\pm\) 0.43 b  & 12.4 \(\pm\) 0.09 v  & 19.27 \(\pm\) 0.32 v  & 3.4 \(\pm\) 0.33 v  \\ TOF & 4.40 \(\pm\) 0.58 x  & 0.11 \(\pm\) 0.02 x  & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.02 x  & 61.49 \(\pm\) 0.12 y  & 3.52 \(\pm\) 0.11  & 24.82 \(\pm\) 0.82 w  & 12.5 \(\pm\) 0.4 w  \\ MWF & 7.89 \(\pm\) 1.91 y  & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.06 x  & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.05 z  & 64.53 \(\pm\) 0.68 z  & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.19 y  & 19.06 \(\pm\) 0.38 y  & 6.9 \(\pm\) 2.9 z  \\ MOF & 14.36 \(\pm\) 2.64 z  & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.09 y  & 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.02 b  & 62.32 \(\pm\) 0.36 y  & 2.81 \(\pm\) 0.17 z  & 22.47 \(\pm\) 0.33 z  & 10.5 \(\pm\) 0.4 b  \\ ESTWF & 16.68 \(\pm\) 3.37 zU  & 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.13 z  & 0.57 \(\pm\) 0.03 b  & 70.68 \(\pm\) 0.64 w  & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.06 y  & 19.42 \(\pm\) 0.51 y  & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.2 x  \\ ESOF & 17.43 \(\pm\) 5.47 b  & 0.60 \(\pm\) 0.24 z  & 0.60 \(\pm\) 0.09 b  & 64.05 \(\pm\) 0.83 z  & 3.01 \(\pm\) 0.16 z  & 24.98 \(\pm\) 0.33 w  & 10.6 \(\pm\) 1.7 z  \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Means and \(\pm\)SDs of the rheological parameters of shorthead dough and the colour parameters of shorthead bscuits. An interaction between the added fibres and sweeteners was observed (\(p<0.001\)) (Table 2). The use of Tagatesse and maltitol sweeteners in combination with wheat fibre (TWF and MWF biscuits) and Tagatesse with oat fibre (TOW) resulted in a decrease in stickiness, although the work of adhesion and dough strength did not change significantly. In biscuits with erythritol-stevia (ESt) combined with both wheat fibre and oat fibre, an increase in all tested dough rheological parameters was observed.