## 3 Results and Discussion
### Sensory Properties of Chicken with Armillaria mellae During the Pressure-Cooking Process  
To better understand consumers' preferences regarding the sensory properties' quality changes during the pressure-cooking process of chicken with _Armillaria mellae_, we selected sensory evaluation with 12 panelists by scoring samples across four aspects: appearance, odor, taste, and flavor. Table 2 presents the evaluation outcomes, with each sample demonstrating statistical significance (\(p<0.05\)). The overall appearance score difference between the samples was slight because only the cooking time was changed, and the chicken-to-_Armillaria mellae_ material ratio was unchanged. The pressure-cooking time does not affect the product's appearance [47]. However, significant effects on taste and smell were noted (\(p<0.05\)). The mushroom aroma, fat aroma, baked-butter aroma, and floral and fruity aroma became more assertive with the extension of pressure-cooking time. This could be attributed to the Maillard and lipid oxidation reactions between meat and _Armillaria mellae_ during the pressure-cooking process, which generates volatile compounds such as  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Chicken**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{_Armillaria mellae_} \\ \hline  & **Hardness (N)** & **Chewiness (mJ)** & **Gumminess (N)** & **Hardness (N)** & **Chewiness (mJ)** & **Gumminess (N)** \\ \hline S20 & 10,454.85 \(\pm\) 88.73 a  & 2515.31 \(\pm\) 34.94 a  & 3978.95 \(\pm\) 6.34 a  & 576.93 \(\pm\) 27.10 a  & 402.27 \(\pm\) 13.61 a  & 431.79 \(\pm\) 8.94 a  \\ S25 & 9534.33 \(\pm\) 327.22 b  & 2223.62 \(\pm\) 39.28 b  & 3735.86 \(\pm\) 31.35 b  & 397.82 \(\pm\) 7.66 b  & 305.25 \(\pm\) 13.34 b  & 361.20 \(\pm\) 24.11 b  \\ S30 & 8944.59 \(\pm\) 441.60 b  & 1977.69 \(\pm\) 31.74 c  & 3417.52 \(\pm\) 57.65 c  & 355.91 \(\pm\) 17.84 c  & 2490.21 \(\pm\) 1.13 c  & 276.61 \(\pm\) 4.47 c  \\ S35 & 8110.51 \(\pm\) 480.06 c  & 1550.80 \(\pm\) 89.17 d  & 2863.10 \(\pm\) 94.77 d  & 307.51 \(\pm\) 36.47 d  & 185.43 \(\pm\) 4.92 d  & 216.52 \(\pm\) 3.08 d  \\
540 & 7238.34 \(\pm\) 222.03 d  & 1244.36 \(\pm\) 76.26 e  & 2662.67 \(\pm\) 94.57 e  & 256.34 \(\pm\) 6.36 e  & 157.28 \(\pm\) 2.58 e  & 194.08 \(\pm\) 0.06 d  \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Textural characteristics of chicken and _Armillaria mellae_ treated with different pressure-cooking times.  
aldehydes, alcohols, and hydrocarbons [48; 49]. Notably, S35 received the highest flavor rating, likely due to the gradual loosening of muscle fibers in the pressured environment. Conversely, prolonged cooking times, as in S40, resulted in excessively chewy and loose fibers, resembling minced meat and receiving lower scores from panelists. In general, the sensory properties' scores matched the instrumental results. For example, E-tongue was found to have a high level of pleasant freshness at 40 min, and taste was also the highest score at 40 min. The GC-MS, GC-IMS, and E-nose all found a significant increase in volatile compounds at 40 min, and flavor also received the highest score at 40 min. Notably, chicken with _Armillaria mellea_ prepared via pressure cooking scored highest at 35-40 min, suggesting consumer preference and providing a theoretical basis for future industrial production of pre-prepared dishes featuring this delicacy.