# Effects of the Fruit Harvest Date and Shelf-Life Nexus of Apples on Different Quality Perspectives
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Kano Model  
The average responses to each functional and dysfunctional statement for apple quality and oral processing attributes are listed in Table 5. The graphical interpretation of the Kano model (Figure 2) and results shown in Table 5 (both means and modes) allow for the recognition of differences between various shapes of apple quality and oral processing attributes. According to [PERSON] and [PERSON]'s [40] study, the graphic coordinates (Table 5) were determined by averaging all of the start and end points of curves that consumers provided for each statement to enable the creation of Figure 2.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Attribute** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD; Mode** & **Graphic Coordinates** & **Category** \\ \hline Q1-F & If apple size is acceptable, how do you feel? & 1.9 \(\pm\) 1.1; 1.0 & 12.02 & A \\ Q1-D & If apple size is not acceptable, how do & 3.6 \(\pm\) 0.9; 4.0 & 5.30 & \\ \hline Q2-F & If apple is tasty, how do you feel? & 1.2 \(\pm\) 0.7; 1.0 & 12.99 & \\ Q2-D & If apple is not tasty, how do you feel? & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.8; 5.0 & 5.06 & O \\ \hline Q3-F & If apple is sweet, how do you feel? & 2.0 \(\pm\) 1.4; 1.0 & 12.20 & \\ Q3-D & If apple is not sweet, how do you feel? & 3.2 \(\pm\) 1.4; 4.0 & 5.34 & A \\ \hline Q4-F & If apple is tart, how do you feel? & 2.2 \(\pm\) 1.5; 1.0 & 11.38 & \\ Q4-D & If apple is not tart, how do you feel? & 3.1 \(\pm\) 1.4; 4.0 & 5.55 & A \\ \hline Q5-F & If apple is firm, how do you feel? & 2.4 \(\pm\) 1.5; 1.0 & 11.14 & \\ Q5-D & If apple is not firm, how do you feel? & 3.6 \(\pm\) 1.4; 4.0 & 6.08 & A \\ \hline Q6-F & If apple is juice, how do you feel? & 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.7; 1.0 & 13.25 & \\ Q6-D & If apple is not juicy, how do you feel? & 4.2 \(\pm\) 1.0; 5.0 & 4.78 & O \\ \hline Q7-F & If apple is chrispy, how do you feel? & 1.8 \(\pm\) 1.1; 1.0 & 12.80 & \\ Q7-D & If apple is not chrispy, how do you feel? & 3.8 \(\pm\) 1.0; 4.0 & 5.17 & A \\ \hline O1-F & When apple requires higher number of chews, & 3.7 \(\pm\) 1.2; 4.0 & 7.69 & R \\ O1-D & When apple requires lower number of chews, & 2.1 \(\pm\) 1.2; 1.0 & 7.46 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Average Kano’s quality category for every oral processing and food quality characteristic.  
As expected, given its connection to sensory characteristics, apple quality requirements reflect a combination of one-dimensional (taste and juiciness) and attractive (size, sweetness, tartness, firmness, and crispness) categories. This is consistent with the study by [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] (2019), which categorized sensory characteristics associated with hedonic pleasure into three categories: 'attractive','must-be', and 'one-dimensional'.  
Q7--Crispness; O1--Number of chews; O2--Apple breakdown; O3--Bite size; O4--Chewing rate; O5--Eating rate.  
Integrating the [PERSON] model for consumer satisfaction into sensory analysis adds a unique layer by providing a structured way by which to categorize and understand consumer preferences and reactions to product attributes. This approach adds depth to sensory analysis by emphasizing not only the functional aspects of a product but also emotional and psychological drivers of consumer delight [65].