## 3 Results
### Consumer Sensory Evaluation  
Rainbow trout samples were perceived appealing prior to tasting (Tables 2 and 3). HSRT samples obtained higher overall liking scores compared to CSRT samples. Only a few statistically significant differences could be observed with HSRT samples (Table 3), whereas HPP had clearer effects on the sensory properties of CSRT samples (Table 2). The appearance of CSRT samples was especially altered due to HPP treatment. Figure 1: Soluble protein profiles and digestion patterns (D) in (**a**) cold smoked rainbow trout (CSRT) and (**b**) hot smoked rainbow trout (HSRT) samples treated with high pressure processing at 0, 200, 400, and 600 MPa. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline
**Sensory Term** & **CSRT-0** & **CSRT-200** & **CSRT-400** & **CSRT-600** \\ \hline Appeal & 6.21 \(\pm\) 2.1 ab & 6.28 \(\pm\) 1.8 a & 5.47 \(\pm\) 1.9 b & 5.38 \(\pm\) 2.1 b \\ Overall liking & 5.75 \(\pm\) 1.8 ab & 6.34 \(\pm\) 1.7 a & 5.60 \(\pm\) 1.8 b & 4.91 \(\pm\) 2.0 b \\
**Texture** & & & & \\ Tender & 0.77 \(\pm\) 1.5 a & 1.13 \(\pm\) 1.6 a & 0.87 \(\pm\) 1.2 a & 0.83 \(\pm\) 1.3 a \\ Chewy & 1.70 \(\pm\) 1.8 ab & 1.38 \(\pm\) 1.5 a & 2.02 \(\pm\) 1.8 ab & 2.28 \(\pm\) 1.7 b \\ Juicy & 1.87 \(\pm\) 1.8 a & 2.17 \(\pm\) 1.7 a & 1.38 \(\pm\) 1.6 ab & 1.02 \(\pm\) 1.4 b \\ Dry & 0.55 \(\pm\) 1.2 a & 0.49 \(\pm\) 1.1 a & 1.06 \(\pm\) 1.5 ab & 1.21 \(\pm\) 1.7 b \\ Moist & 2.08 \(\pm\) 1.6 a & 2.02 \(\pm\) 1.7 ab & 1.34 \(\pm\) 1.6 b & 1.25 \(\pm\) 1.4 b \\ Hard & 0.70 \(\pm\) 1.3 a & 0.53 \(\pm\) 1.2 a & 0.81 \(\pm\) 1.4 b & 1.45 \(\pm\) 1.9 b \\ Firm & 2.19 \(\pm\) 2.0 ab & 1.87 \(\pm\) 1.8 a & 2.47 \(\pm\) 1.8 ab & 2.96 \(\pm\) 1.8 b \\ Soft & 2.15 \(\pm\) 1.9 ac & 2.04 \(\pm\) 1.8 a & 1.34 \(\pm\) 1.6 b & 1.02 \(\pm\) 1.5 b \\ Elastic & 1.47 \(\pm\) 1.7 a & 1.49 \(\pm\) 1.7 a & 1.09 \(\pm\) 1.6 a & 1.11 \(\pm\) 1.6 a \\ Gummy & 1.60 \(\pm\) 1.8 a & 1.32 \(\pm\) 1.6 a & 1.79 \(\pm\) 1.8 a & 1.72 \(\pm\) 1.8 a \\ Flake-like & 0.26 \(\pm\) 0.8 a & 0.43 \(\pm\) 1.1 a & 0.60 \(\pm\) 1.2 a & 0.47 \(\pm\) 1.2 a \\
**Appearance** & & & & \\ Light colour & 0.42 \(\pm\) 1.1 a & 0.43 \(\pm\) 1.0 a & 1.62 \(\pm\) 1.7 b & 2.09 \(\pm\) 1.8 b \\ Intense red colour & 3.83 \(\pm\) 1.5 a & 3.74 \(\pm\) 1.6 a & 1.72 \(\pm\) 1.8 b & 1.51 \(\pm\) 1.6 b \\ Shiny surface & 2.77 \(\pm\) 1.9 a & 2.34 \(\pm\) 1.8 a & 1.34 \(\pm\) 1.6 b & 1.17 \(\pm\) 1.5 b \\ Matte surface & 0.72 \(\pm\) 1.2 a & 1.11 \(\pm\) 1.6 ac & 2.15 \(\pm\) 1.8 b & 1.98 \(\pm\) 2.0 b \\
**Overall impression** & & & & \\ Fresh & 1.87 \(\pm\) 1.8 ab & 2.11 \(\pm\) 1.7 a & 1.66 \(\pm\) 1.7 ab & 1.19 \(\pm\) 1.5 a \\ Unpleasant & 1.06 \(\pm\) 1.6 a & 0.81 \(\pm\) 1.4 a & 1.19 \(\pm\) 1.6 a & 1.43 \(\pm\) 1.7 a \\ Pleasant & 2.17 \(\pm\) 1.7 ab & 2.58 \(\pm\) 1.7 a & 1.98 \(\pm\) 1.6 ab & 1.60 \(\pm\) 1.7 b \\ \hline \end{tabular} \(\;\)Samples indicated with same letters do not vary at a statistically significant level according to the Wilcoxon test (\(p<\) 0.05, using Bonferroni correction).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: The appeal (1 = not appealing at all, 9 = very appealing), overall liking (1 = I do not like it at all, 9 = I like it very much) and Rate-All-That-Apply (1 = slightly applicable, 5 = very applicable) results (average \(\pm\) standard deviation) of old smoked rainbow trout (CSRT) samples obtained with consumer sensory evaluation (n = 53).