## 3 Sensory Evaluation of Red Meat Quality  
Sensory evaluation is the scientific method used to evoke, measure, analyse, and interpret responses to the sensory aspect of food as experienced by sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing [82]. Conventional sensory evaluation can be classified into three broad types of sensory tests: (1) discrimination tests, which determine whether products differ or are similar in terms of particular or generic features, (2) descriptive analysis, which offersa thorough qualitative and quantitative description of the sensory qualities of products, and (3) consumer tests, which concentrate on comprehending the hedonic and emotional reactions of consumers towards products [82]. These groups of tests include a wide range of methods/protocols that are widely by meat scientists in academia and industry [83].  
Research guidelines for the cookery, sensory evaluation, and instrumental tenderness of meat [52], and the consumer testing protocol reported by [PERSON] et al. [84], based on the Meat Standards Australia (AMSA) grading system, are the most frequently used protocols for meat quality evaluation. Evaluation of meat quality often involves descriptive analysis methods such as the flavour profile method, texture profile method, and quantitative descriptive analysis and consumer-based approaches [85].  
Although sensory evaluation is an effective tool for assessing meat quality, it does have limitations. In studies using descriptive analysis methods, the level of training panellists receive can vary substantially across studies [86; 87], potentially affecting the sensory data's reliability. Considerable variations also exist in the type of scale used to measure the intensity of meat sensory attributes, with 8-point, 9-point and 16-point scales, which can be verbal or numeric, as well as a 100 cm line scale, which can be structured or unstructured, frequently cited [86; 87; 88; 89]. To improve the speed of sensory assessment compared to the conventional methods for sensory evaluation of food, efforts have been made over the past few decades to develop new, rapid methodologies such as the Check-All-That-Apply (CATA), Rate-All-That-Apply (RATA) and Napping, and temporal-based methodologies such as the temporal dominance of sensations (TDS) and Temporal Check-All-That-Apply (TCATA) [85]. However, rapid sensory techniques, such as Napping, can be challenging to apply in the context of meat, as the need to keep samples warm conflicts with simultaneous presentation. Many researchers have investigated the correlation between instrumental techniques and sensory perception [89; 90; 91; 92]. Despite the fact that the literature shows a good correlation between instrumental methods and sensory evaluation of red meat, [PERSON] et al. (2002) [93] summarised earlier research on the instrumental and sensory correlations for beef and pork texture, observing considerable variation in the correlation results. The sensory traits of meat that are analysed most frequently by trained and consumer panels are the tenderness (initial and overall tenderness), juiciness, beef flavour intensity and chewiness [94; 95; 96; 97].  
Understanding these tools and their limitations, as well as having a deep knowledge of the product and appropriate controls, is essential for conducting accurate sensory evaluations. Therefore, developing a rapid and precise method for predicting meat quality is the highest priority, as it ensures consistent product quality, minimises economic losses, and satisfies increasing consumer demands for high-quality products. These criteria maybe effectively met by the substantial promise of optical sensing techniques.