# 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 ($$x_1,...,x_n$$), 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 $$x_{k_1} @ ... @x_{k_m}$$ 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 respresnted in DNF or CNF form (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_normal_form).

I'm wondering, 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?