## 4 Conclusions  
This study is the first to investigate the effects of the interaction between chicken and _Armillaria mellea_ on the number of volatile compounds and sensory properties during pressure cooking. This study aims to fully understand the dynamic changes in chicken with _Armillaria mellea_ during the pressure-cooking process and maximize its potential for product development. E-tongue analysis found that the extension of pressure-cooking time significantly affected taste, especially umami. E-nose, GC-MS, and GC-IMS combined found that the number of volatile compounds fluctuated significantly with the length of pressure-cooking time. In the OAV analysis of volatile compounds, nonanal, decanal, (E,E)-2,4-nonadienal, (E,E)-2,4-decadienal, and 1-octen-3-ol were considered to be the most important aroma contributors, which gave the chicken and _Armillaria mellea_ their unique fat, oil, and mushroom aromas. Regarding the texture and sensory properties, we found that the taste significantly improved with the extension of pressure-cooking time. However, the overall texture of chicken with _Armillaria mellea_ prepared via pressure cooking was affected when the pressure-cooking time reached 40 min. In summary, these findings reveal the flavor changes in chicken with _Armillaria mellea_ during the pressure-cooking process. Determining the ideal pressure-cooking time of 35 to 40 min provides a theoretical basis for preparing high-quality, ready-to-eat chicken with Armillaria mellea prepared via pressure cooking. This study is the first to explore complex substances and the dynamic changes in the mutual flavor substances between the two substances at different pressure-cooking stages. This study also encourages people to explore the effects of heat treatment on food flavor and taste and the development of complex food flavors. However, it is important to note that the traceability of these substances has certain limitations. In future studies, it will be crucial to delve into the underlying processes of taste precursor alterations during pressure cooking and explore how various cooking methods impact the production of volatile compounds in chicken with Armillaria mellea prepared via pressure cooking. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Appearance** & **Taste** & **Texture** & **Flavor** & **Total Score** \\ \hline S20 & 18.05 \(\pm\) 1.67 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 18.20 \(\pm\) 1.47 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 17.35 \(\pm\) 1.76 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 19.00 \(\pm\) 1.59 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 72.60 \(\pm\) 3.28 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ S25 & 19.25 \(\pm\) 1.21 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 19.90 \(\pm\) 0.91 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 19.05 \(\pm\) 1.23 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 20.25 \(\pm\) 1.29 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 78.45 \(\pm\) 3.09 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ S30 & 19.70 \(\pm\) 1.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 21.00 \(\pm\) 0.92 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 20.40 \(\pm\) 1.47 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 21.20 \(\pm\) 1.64 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 82.30 \(\pm\) 2.89 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ S35 & 20.20 \(\pm\) 1.24 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 22.25 \(\pm\) 1.55 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 23.05 \(\pm\) 1.28 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 22.30 \(\pm\) 1.38 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 87.80 \(\pm\) 3.79 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ S40 & 20.95 \(\pm\) 1.85 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 23.90 \(\pm\) 1.07 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 19.40 \(\pm\) 1.76 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 23.70 \(\pm\) 1.22 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 87.75 \(\pm\) 2.96 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
\({}^{\text{The data are presented as the mean $\pm$ SD. Different letters within the same column indicate significant differences ($p<$ 0.05$).}}\)  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Sensory properties of chicken and _Armillaria mellea_ treated with different pressure-cooking times.