Data collection

We used the following methods to design the revised scoping review methodology; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) framework (Schultz et al., 2018; Tricco et al., 2018), and guidelines by Joanna Briggs Institute (Moola et al., 2015) for the search strategy. These methods were used to systematically and comprehensively map concepts and the distribution across the fields (Levac et al., 2010). The revised scoping review included the following: (1) a pilot study that was conducted by an external reviewer to assist in planning the main study and analysing its validity (In, 2017), (2) a main study which involved a blind review by two reviewers to screen the titles and abstracts to ensure inter-rater consistency, and (3) conflict resolution through discussions between the two reviewers to finalise the selection of the full-text articles. Figure 1 depicts the parameters used in the revised scoping review.

Parameters of the revised scoping review.

We consulted six world experts through online focus group discussions following the scoping review. The world experts represented various disciplines of study: (1) mechanical engineering (Associate Prof. Ben Hanson; University College London); (2) food science (Prof. Lisa Duizer; University of Guelph, Canada); (3) audiology (Prof. Wayne Wilson; University of Queensland, Brisbane); (4) cognitive neuropsychology (Prof. Massimiliano Zampini; University of Trento, Italy); (5) a sommelier, (Chef Ferran Centelles; Director of BulliPedia Drinks elBullifoundation, Barcelona), and (6) speech pathology and audiology (Associate Prof. Mershen Pillay; University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa). These experts were purposefully selected based on their respective fields of expertise and the knowledge of them contributing collaboratively and constructively to the development of the study. Pillay co-author of the article, was included in the study as he is an expert who has developed the THRIVE framework and provided a perspective from a low- to middle-income context on the matter. The expert consultations included self-developed semi-structured open-ended questions to promote dialogue between the experts. The questions focused on the experts’ opinions regarding food textural acoustics, its relevance to their respective fields and discussion relating to some of the published literature and scoping review findings. We also shared details of the methodology and results of phase 2 of our study. Our analysis yielded core constructs and considerations when studying food textural acoustics, which will be presented under the ‘Results and discussion’ section.