The eye percieves at about 10 hz. That's 100ms per capture. All the rest, I'd have to see a study that shows how any higher framerate can possibly be perceived or useful.
Even your average movie captures at 24 hz. Again, very likely you've never actually just compared these things for yourself back to back, as I mentioned originally.
It takes effectively no effort to conduct such a study yourself. Just try re-encoding a video at different frame rates up to your monitor refresh rate. Or try looking at a monitor that has a higher refresh rate than the one you normally use.
Not sure what this means; the eye doesn’t perceive anything. Maybe you’re thinking of saccades or round-trip response times or something else? Those are in the ~100ms range, but that’s different from whether the eye can see something.
This paper shows pictures can be recognized at 13ms, which is faster than 60hz, and that’s for full scenes, not even motion tracking or small localized changes. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-013-0605-z
Movies’ 24Hz is too slow, just watch a horizontal pan. 24Hz is good enough for slow things, but it was chosen that low for cost reasons, not because it’s the limit of perception. US TV’s 60hz interlace isn’t the limit either, which is also shown with horizontal pans. 60hz progressive looks different than 30hz, just watch YouTube or turn on frame interpolation on a modern TV.
The limit of meaningful motion tracking perception might be in the 100-200Hz range. The reason 500Hz is meaningful to gamers is, I think, because of latency rather than frequency. Video systems often have multiple frames of latency, so there actually is a perceptible difference to them between 60Hz and 500Hz.
I don’t know what typical display latency of just browsing files with a monitor these days. I’d guess it’s probably a few frames, and I’d bet we would be able to feel the difference between 3 frames of latency at 144hz and 1 frame of latency at 144hz. I’m also curious if mouse cursor motion blur would make any difference.