# Are people better at interpreting CNF or DNF?

We have a development in our application in which our users can create a report based on different parameters, say ($$x_1,\dots,x_n$$), with each $$x_i$$ taking values in a set $$X_i$$.

The report can take as input any type of logical formula of the form $$x_{k_1} @ \dots @ x_{k_m}$$ where $$@$$ represents a disjuntion $$\lor$$ or a conjuction $$\land$$ ($$@ \in \{\land, \lor\}$$). The report will return a population whose features under the formula are true. For example, I can input the formula $$(x_{k_1} < 50 ) \land (x_{k_2} = T \lor x_{k_3} =F)$$ and I will see all the results with those parameters satisfied.

A known result in Boolean logic says that any type of such formula can be represented in conjunctive normal form (CNF) or disjunctive normal form (DNF).

Do you know of any research on the question of whether humans are better at interpreting logical formulas in CNF or DNF versus a less structured form? Moreover, is there any research on whether CNF or DNF is more intuitive than the other?