It was exactly a paper mill reviewer, most the citations weren't even in cognitive science and they were all from suspicious journals. Frankly speaking I would have preferred the editor spot and deal with that before issuing a decision, but I'll settle for dealing with it before revision.

This is how I copyedit my own writing (using a simple text to speech accessibility tool), but I think it would be too much for trying to take in content.

Does that contradict the argument being made here? I haven't had time to read the accepted article in depth yet, but from what I can tell, not quite. It might mean that we need to reconsider what the core concept of "cause" actually looks like, but it's not that perception is completely unrelated...

I think that's beyond the scope of what we looked at. There are other people who have looked at predictability and such that might be more relevant to that question

Wasn't the first journal we submitted to, however! It's been a long journey for this paper

Epilogue: Just to say as Andreas's advisor, I'm tremendously proud of his work on this. He learned 3D modeling an animation for this project to make the stimuli, and designed brilliant experiments to confront foundational questions about causality and memory. So thrilled to share it with all of you1