My post is rather off topic but I think the answer to his question was already given.
I tried searching for that study but came up with the same old and then went looking for anything new but the same conclusion still remained. Simply put, we perceive a constant stream of visual info and no fps limit has been found with current tech. That's right even 144hz monitors (won't mention interpolating tvs) are not the max we can see. Although without being exposed to the higher fps previously, many people say they can't tell the difference between 120hz vs 240hz tvs but that might be the interpolating tech complicating things. I know people who couldn't see a surefire difference in 60 to 120hz monitors when they first got them and now they won't ever go back to 60 hz. And this isn't about input lag or reaction times, this is about motion blur and video smoothness. It's much more noticeable in fast paced action though so if it's slower games then it's not a concern.
If that test wasn't about fps then it really can't be used when referring to fps. Things like the air forces study that showed pilots could see a 1/220 second flash of light gets brought up a lot a lot in the fps discussion. There's also the mit study that I saw multiple times on this forum saying we can process an image in 13ms or ~77fps but the study was to identify an image between other images with different subjects. Neither of these can really be used for studying fps since neither of these is looking at the processing of motion in video or fps perception.
Peripheral vision, brightness, color, subject, etc., affect fps perception. There's just too many variables and not enough research to give even a range of how much fps we can perceive which does come down much more into psychology rather than any of these environmental variables. I do wonder why a physics teacher even mentioned that when it goes more into physiology or psychology.