This comes up in an ancient and often heated discussion a lot on game boards as to the "optimal" FPS to have in a game - many proponents saying anything under 100 FPS is "unplayable" for them, and another group saying basically anything over 60 is either not noticeably perceivable to the human eye, or barely noticeable.

I'm starting to see the pop-science-gamer-journalism interpretation of this study as being "study proves some humans see at different FPS" and all the 100+ FPS gamers being like "AHA! Told you!" when really the results of the study support the ~60 fps conclusion that's been mainstream for a while (if I'm interpreting correctly). I think the science here is pretty clear - there is a variation in human visual temporal resolution, and this paper's a bit over my head but if I'm understanding correctly it isn't much (at least in this sample size and the gamer context - I'm aware they concluded the variation was large between individuals).

TLDR if you're fussing that you're "only" getting 90 FPS vs 120 or whatever, and genuinely feel like it's affecting your performance - don't worry, seems very similar to the audiophile stuff to me. I think that there are probably big outliers in this range (thinking specifically professional baseball players), but perhaps the "perceived" difference is because if you have 130 FPS your average framerate is likely to always stay above your perception, and maybe at 70-90 it will occasionally dip below that threshold, causing you to perceive a difference.