This is an inherent limitation in trying to use Hz to measure a system which does not really have a concept of frequency at all. For instance when you have a motor system -> vision feedback loop, humans have been shown to accurately discern latency differences of as low as 1ms in some studies. Though if you've ever played on a first person game at 60Hz, then 120Hz, then finally 144Hz and beyond, this probably won't surprise you. It's quite strange how you can perceive multiple degrees of "instantaneous".

It's also been shown that latency differences as low as that don't really have any noticeable impact on human performance though, so it's likely we can merely perceive that to allow our brain to subconsciously fine-tune our motor system. You'd be a very clumsy human if your motor system only had a resolution of ~20ms throughout. Despite it obviously being necessary to help you learn to use your motor system, we don't really seem to get to use that high "resolution" much consciously.

Also I might be comparing apples to oranges here, because you could also argue that a camera taking one picture every 10s could discern differences as low as that, if you take the pictures at the right time. But we also don't work like cameras, which brings us back to the topic at hand of frequency not being a good metric since our vision is more of a continuously operating system.

Make of that what you will.