Overall, the reviewers appreciated this paper and thought it was an interesting contribution to the literature. Because of this I am recommending that the paper be accepted. However, there was one major request from the Reviewer 3 (and me) that the authors appropriately frame their discussion of previous work, specifically [3]. Quoting reviewer 3's discussion directly: "The authors claim to be first to directly supervise attention; which has been done before with token-level annotation, and is exactly what [3] does with gaze. This false claim of novelty is problematic, but also unnecessary, since this is a great paper that already makes decent contributions, eg smart pretraining." I would highly encourage the authors to take this comment in earnest, and give the relationship with [3] proper treatment and explaining the additional contributions that this paper makes on top of it.